Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Please consider the comments of Tal Kaitz as also withdrawn.
The only comments remaining to vote upon are the following:
Nico van Waes Comment 380
Lalit Kotecha Comment 435
Roger
>Please consider the comments of Changhoi Koo as also withdrawn.
>
>By my count, the only comments remaining to vote upon are the following,
>
>Tal Kaitz Comment 412 and Comment 414
>Nico van Waes Comment 380
>Lalit Kotecha Comment 435
>
>Roger
>
>
>>Based on statements from Raja Banerjea, Itzik Kitroser, and Yigal
>>Leiba, their comments are withdrawn. You need not vote on those,
>>because they will be marked as Withdrawn regardless of the totals.
>>
>>Remaining under consideration are comments from the following:
>>
>>Tal Kaitz 2
>>Cor van de Water 3
>>Nico van Waes 1
>>Changhoi Koo 68
>>Lalit Kotecha 14
>>Wonil Roh 25
>>
>>Seung Joo Maeng suggested the withdrawal of comments 405 and 426,
>>and possibly 470, 474, and 543 as well. However, I have not
>>received a formal withdrawal from the submitter of those comments.
>>Therefore, you should plan to cast a vote on these.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>At 11:58 -0600 04/06/04, Gordon Antonello wrote:
>>>Thanks to all on this one. There are ways to clean the ERRATA via
>>>the TGe process.
>>>
>>>Gordon
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Ken Stanwood [mailto:kstanwood@cygnuscom.com]
>>>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 10:28 AM
>>>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>>>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
>>>P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks Itzik and Yigal,
>>>
>>>This will help get the document approved in a timely fashion.
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
>>>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 10:12 AM
>>>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5
>>>Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
>>>
>>>Dear all,
>>>
>>>I would like also to withdraw all my comments.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Itzik.
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Yigal Leiba
>>>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:05 PM
>>>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
>>>P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
>>>
>>>Hi Roger, all,
>>>
>>>After reading the possibilities below, I am convinced that there are
>>>ways to
>>>correct the errors I identified in rev-D5, such that publication is not
>>>delayed.
>>>I would therefore request the BRC voters to reject all my comments.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Yigal
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>>>Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:59 PM
>>>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>>>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
>>>P802.16-REVd/D5
>>>Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
>>>
>>>
>>>David,
>>>
>>>On one hand, I wouldn't worry that the 16e PAR scope prohibits us
>>>from making corrections that are not directly related to mobility.
>>>According to IEEE-SA, an amendment is "a document that has to contain
>>>new material to an existing IEEE standard and that may contain
>>>substantive corrections to that standard as well." In my experience,
>>>IEEE-SA allow errata in an amendment, even when it isn't explicit in
>>>the PAR scope. For example, 802.16a corrected errors in 802.16-2001.
>>>Also, we are proposing to modify the 16e PAR and could easily add a
>>>sentence about errata. Let's consider that as alternative (1).
>>>
>>>On the other hand, I do see merits in your arguments. I would suggest
>>>that we consider the following two alternatives:
>>>
>>>(2) Add errata to the scope of the upcoming MIB PAR that we agreed on
>>>in Shenzhen. That would make a lot of sense, especially if we expect
>>>that MIB work to be complete soon. After all, that PAR is targeted at
>>>fixed-only.
>>>
>>>(3) We could open a PAR for a corrigenda ("Corrigenda: A document
>>>that only contains substantive corrections to an existing IEEE
>>>standard.") This kind of PAR does not require 30-day advance notice
>>>to the SEC.
>>>
>>>Even if we don't know of any errors in the final version of REVd, I
>>>can confidently predict that we will find some. Therefore, for
>>>protection, we need to identify a specific outlet for the
>>>corrections. We can, and we should, make the decision at Session #32.
>>>At the moment, (2) and (3) sound like the best options.
>>>
>>>Thanks for your input.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>At 17:02 +0100 04/06/03, David Castelow wrote:
>>> >Roger,
>>> >
>>> >I raised this issue at the plenary in Shenzhen, but your comment to
>>> >Vladimir brings it to mind once more.
>>> >While the .16e PAR provides the opportunity to make amendments, can you
>>> >please provide guidance as to how we can distinguish which parts of the
>>> >contents of the .16e document are corrections to .16-2004 and which are
>>> >the additional features required to implement .16e. Is the PAR really
>>> >sufficient to provide for errata? I quote from the current PAR
>>> >document:
>>> >
>>> >Scope of Proposed Project:
>>> >This document provides enhancements to IEEE Std 802.16/802.16a to
>>> >support subscriber stations moving at vehicular speeds and thereby
>>> >specifies a system for combined fixed and mobile broadband wireless
>>> >access. Functions to support higher layer handoff between base stations
>>> >or sectors are specified. Operation is limited to licensed bands
>>> >suitable for mobility between 2 and 6 GHz. Fixed 802.16a subscriber
>>> >capabilities shall not be compromised (See Item #18).
>>> >
>>> >A strict, narrow, interpretation of this would not seem to allow any
>>> >errata to be included.
>>> >
>>> >Also the errata MUST be made explicit.
>>> >In the case of .16c, the profiles were not in conflict with any changes
>>> >to the base document.
>>> >In .16e, large changes are likely to be made, and we need to
>>>distinguish
>>> >the errata to .16-2004 from the other changes being made in .16e.
>>> >
>>> >At the very least, I suggest, and shall raise a comment to this effect,
>>> >that a section of the .16e document be created in which the errata can
>>> >reside.
>>> >
>>> >There is also the issue of timing. While the current plan shows .16e
>>> >completing around November, given the changes currently being
>>> >introduced, this seems optimistic. Some of the technical issues being
>>> >discussed for .16-2004 (aka .16-REVd/D5) need rapid agreement, in order
>>> >for ASICs to be constructed in a timely fashion.
>>> >
>>> >However, this does not resolve marketing style issues relating to
>>> >compliance (to what: " .16-2004 plus the Errata Section of .16e" is a
>>> >bit of a mouthful).
>>> >
>>> >The alternative of creating an Errata document would be preferable.
>>> >
>>> >Comments please.
>>> >
>>> >Regards
>>> >
>>> >David Castelow
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B.
>>>Marks
>>> >Sent: 03 June 2004 14:37
>>> >To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> >Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
>>> >P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
>>> >
>>> >Vladimir,
>>> >
>>> >We are at the end of the line, and time is too short for reply
>>>comments.
>>> >People have had one chance after another to get their comments right.
>>>If
>>> >a comment isn't right, then I think you should vote to reject. If you
>>> >think there is a valid point here, then we should use the amendment
>>> >mechanism to address it. Fortunately, we have an active amendment
>>> >project - P802.16e - in which to include any additional changes.
>>> >
>>> >Roger
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >At 15:25 +0300 04/06/03, Vladimir Yanover wrote:
>>> >>Roger,
>>> >>
>>> >>There are useful comments in database, in which remedy is incomplete
>>>or
>>> >
>>> >>contains errors.
>>> >>If we reject them, the problem stays, if accept, the text becomes
>>> >>inconsistent.
>>> >>Is there a procedural way to modify suggested remedy?
>>> >>In D4 we had step of reply comments and it was very useful
>>> >>
>>> >>Thanks
>>> >>
>>> >>Vladimir
>>> >>
>>> >>-----Original Message-----
>>> >>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>> >>Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:17 AM
>>> >>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>>> >>Subject: +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5
>>>Recirculation
>>> >
>>> >>Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>When I posted the P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation comments, I said that
>>>I
>>> >
>>> >>would announce the on-line comment resolution process in a few days
>>>and
>>> >
>>> >>told you to expect the decision-making process to be quick. I hope you
>>> >>have had time to read the comments.
>>> >>
>>> >>The process is described in IEEE 802.16-04/31
>>> >><http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_31.pdf>. Members of the IEEE
>>> >>802.16 Working Group <http://ieee802.org/16/members.html> are the
>>> >>members of the Ballot Resolution Committee and eligible to vote. They
>>> >>should read IEEE 802.16-04/31 for details. It explains the need to
>>>make
>>> >
>>> >>a quick decision on these comments.
>>> >>
>>> >>The voting deadline is 5 June AOE.
>>> >>
>>> >>Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >>Roger
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>The P802.16-REVd Recirc #2 balloting period has closed.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>The good news is that we are down to one Disapprove voter (Nico van
>>> >>>Waes). He submitted one Technical Binding comment, which was a
>>> >>>reiteration of a previous comment.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>The bad news is that we received a total of 171 comments.
>>> >>> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_30.zip
>>> >>>
>>> >>>The following show the members of the Sponsor Ballot Group who
>>> >>>submitted comments, along with the number of comments:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Tal Kaitz 2
>>> >>>Itzik Kitroser 11
>>> >>>Yigal Leiba 44
>>> >>>Cor van de Water 3
>>> >>>Nico van Waes 1
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I received additional comments from other individuals who do not
>>> >>>belong to the Sponsor Ballot Group:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Raja Banerjea 3
>>> >>>Changhoi Koo 68
>>> >>>Lalit Kotecha 14
>>> >>>Wonil Roh 25
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>We will now move on to an on-line comment resolution process in which
>>> >>>the members of the Ballot Resolution Committee will be the Members of
>>> >>>the IEEE 802.16 Working Group. I will provide details in a few days.
>>> >>>Expect the decision-making process to be quick.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>For those of you who are wondering where this leaves us: we have met
>>> >>>the RevCom conditions for D5 to be approved as an IEEE standard on
>>> >>>24 June. If we reject all of these comments, no further recirculation
>>> >>>will be necessary. However, we also have the option to
>>> >> >accept comments, produce draft D6, open a third recirculation, and
>>> >> >remove D5 from the June RevCom agenda.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Roger
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>>> >>
>>> >>**********************************************************************
>>>*
>>> >>*****
>>> >>********
>>> >>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>>> >>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
>>> >>computer viruses.
>>> >>**********************************************************************
>>>*
>>> >>*****
>>> >>********
>>> >>This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>>> >>
>>> >>**********************************************************************
>>>*
>>> >>************* This footnote confirms that this email message has been
>>> >>scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
>>> >>vandals & computer viruses.
>>> >>**********************************************************************
>>>*
>>> > >*************