Dear Seung,
There were several
proposals to fix this editorial error.
I took the one that seem
to make the smallest change in the document (and by that to be able to pass it
through the IEEE editor) and did not look at the original data base.
I agree with your
comment, and will implement the original proposal of comment #219 of 80216-04_20r10.
00 = PUSC
permutation
01 = Optional PUSC
permutation
10 = Adjacent subcarrier
permutation
11 = Reserved
Thank you for your note.
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of SeungJoo Maeng
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:51 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] report
of IEEE P802.16-REVd under Procedure 10
Dear Itzik,
I reviewed the "editorial comments.doc" file, and found that one of the changes
is not correct.
That is for the notes of permutation field in Table
292, section 8.4.5.4.7, page 539.
In your document, you changes the D5 text as follows :
'0b00 = PUSC permutation
0b01 = FPUSC permutation (using all subchannels)
0b10 = Optional FPUSC permutation
0b11 = Adjcent subcarrier permutation
(I denote deleted character by blue color since I can't
use delete line in this mail.)
But the above changes did not reflect the originally
approved resolutionof recirculation ballot in April.
Actually, in comment #219 of
"80216-04_20r7.usr" which was already accepted by the group,
the proposed changes were :
0b00=PUSC permutation,
0b01=Optional
FUSCPUSC permutation,
0b10=Optional
FUSC permutation Adjacent
subcarrier permutation,
0b11=Adjacent
subcarrier permutation reserved
I think this change was not correctly reflected in
D5 by editor's mistake, so it should be reflected in the D5 document.
By the way, the newly proposed changes in the Itzik's
document are not pure editorial, since the case
"PUSC permutation (using all subchannels)" is
actually the new addition to the existing standard.
Also, if that case is allowed, the case of
"Optional PUSC permuation using all subchannels" and
the case of "Adjacent subcarrier permutation using
all subchannels" should also be allowed.
So it is better to add the "Use All SC
Indicator" bit to the UL_Zone_Switch_IE in the same way as in
DL_Zone_Switch_IE,
and that can be dealt in errata stage.
Thanks.
Seung Joo
------- Original Message -------
Sender : Itzik Kitroser<itzikk@RUNCOM.CO.IL>
Date : 2004-06-15 22:01
Title : Re: [STDS-802-16] report of IEEE P802.16-REVd under Procedure 10
Hello all,
I was waiting for Roger to acknowledge, but I don't want to delay the
process.
I have uploaded into the TGd upload directory a word document describing
the editorial changes I have made to D5.
<http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/TGd%252edb/Ed
itorial%20Comments.doc>
Roger will post a link to a markup draft reflecting those changes.
I would like to ask if anybody object to the proposed changes, and in
addition if anyone has anything to add.
Please notice that only "pure" editorial changes are acceptable, any
other proposed changes, if you think are appropriate, must be
accompanied with "strong" motivation/explanation (any technical changes
will be dealt with in the errata stage).
Thanks,
Itzik.
-----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: Sunday, June 06, 2004 11:06 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] report of IEEE P802.16-REVd under Procedure 10
Dear LMSC EC Colleagues:
In our meeting of 19 March, the SEC granted conditional approval,
according to Procedure 10, to forward IEEE P802.16-REVd ["Draft IEEE
Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Part 16: Air
Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems"] to RevCom.
Accordingly, I am making this report.
Following EC approval, we proceeded to recirculate from April 1-15.
Comments were received and resolved, in an Internet-based resolution
process with a Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC) comprising all the
members of the 802.16 Working Group. The BRC accepted some comments,
leading to the need for a new draft (D5).
I submitted P802.16-REVd/D5 to RevCom in time to meet their 14 May
deadline for consideration on 23 June. Following RevCom rules, a
second recirc (confirmation ballot) opened by the same 14 May
deadline.
The confirmation ballot ran from 14-29 May. The Procedure 10
conditions have been met. The confirmation ballot closed with no new
Disapprove votes; the final result was 59 Approve, 1 Disapprove, 2
Abstain (98.3% Approval). One Disapprove comment was received, but it
was a reiteration of a rejected comment from the same voter. That
pair of comments are the only unresolved Disapprove comments
remaining. It is quite clear that the comment was a repeat, since it
said "There seems hence little need to provide further argumentation
beyond pointing to the original comment and Reason for
Recommendation", and the Suggested Remedy was simply "Reconsider
comment 004." The BRC did consider this comment again and rejected it
in an Internet vote in which it received an approval ratio of 5%.
No changes of any kind have been made to the draft as a result of the
confirmation ballot. The complete RevCom submittal package for
P802.16-REVd/D5, updated with the final confirmation ballot results
and including the pair of unresolved Disapprove comments, is here:
http://ieee802.org/16/private/ballots/misc/80216-04_26r1.pdf
Regards,
Roger
--
Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:marks@nist.gov> +1 303 497 3037
National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO, USA
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
<http://WirelessMAN.org>