802.21c Teleconference canceled on Feb 12

[h chan <h.anthony.chan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The 802.21c Teleconference on Feb 12 is canceled.

 

The remaining teleconferences that have been scheduled are as follows:

 

Feb 19 Tue 9AM ET

Feb 26 Tue 8PM ET

March 5 Tue 9AM ET

 

The LB#6a re-circulation will close on Feb 16 so that these teleconferences can be used to resolve comments to the LB recirculation.

 

H Anthony Chan

 

From: h chan
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:42 PM
To: 'Park, HyunHo'
Cc: Charlie Perkins; 'Antonio de la Oliva'; '???'; 'Das, Subir'; 'Yoshihiro Ohba'
Subject: RE: About the next IEEE 802.21c teleconference on Jan. 8th

 

Same bridge information as last time:

 

January 8 8-10PM Eastern Time (USA)

USA Toll-Free:	888-858-6182
USA Caller Paid:	646-746-3029
Access Code:	6850396

 

H Anthony Chan

 

From: h chan
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:37 PM
To: 'Park, HyunHo'
Cc: Charlie Perkins; Antonio de la Oliva; 이형호; Das, Subir; Yoshihiro Ohba
Subject: RE: About the next IEEE 802.21c teleconference on Jan. 8th

 

Draft P802.21cD02:

Please check thoroughly now instead of waiting for comments. The goal is to correct/improve so that if you are going to vote, we may likely be satisfied with the draft. If not, it does not make sense to bring it to the WG to vote.

 

Comment resolution file:

One is a joint document I am making to capture the changes made to Clause 11. It includes all the comment number that has been address.

Another one I think is good is the changes made to change Gateway Service to Proxy function. Hyunho and Hyeong-Ho had already created that document. Please update that file with the official document cover page and include all the comment #’s that this document has addressed.

 

Other changes not mandated by existing comments but are desirable improvements:

Charles is proposing to merge the 2 authentication methods into one authentication method in 21c (in 9.2.2.2.2). (without changing the existing authentication methods in 21a – moved from 9.2.2.2 in 802.21a to 9.2.2.2.1 in 802.21c). I think Charles needs to prepare a document to spell out the changes to these sections for discussion.

Such changes, if made, can have rippling effect on the rest of the draft as well as the comment resolution file. It is therefore best to deal with them now than to defer.

 

H Anthony Chan

 

From: Park, HyunHo [mailto:hyunhopark@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:53 AM
To: h chan
Cc: Charlie Perkins; Antonio de la Oliva; 이형호; Das, Subir; Yoshihiro Ohba
Subject: About the next IEEE 802.21c teleconference on Jan. 8th

 

Dear Anthony,
Happy New Year!

 

About the next IEEE 802.21c teleconference on Jan. 8th,

what is the topic to be discussed?

I think that you need to upload the current draft on mentor

before the next IEEE 802.21c teleconference.

 

Best Regards,

Hyunho Park

 

---

보낸 사람 : "Das, Subir" <sdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
보낸 날짜 : 2013-01-02 21:48:39 ( +09:00 )
받는 사람 : h chan <h.anthony.chan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
참조 : Charlie Perkins <Charlie.Perkins@xxxxxxxxxx>, Antonio de la Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx>, 박현호 <hyunhopark@xxxxxxxxxx>, 이형호 <holee@xxxxxxxxxx>
제목 : RE: Latest documents


I appreciate the effort that Anthony and Charlie put for resolving the comments and improving the document with help of BRG members.
BRG members also did a very good job in providing the timely feedback and raising the issues/concerns even during holiday time. I have reviewed all the mails and comment resolution spreadsheet. Apart from deciding to defer the LB re-circ, we have discussed few action items that need to addressed during next three weeks including the F2F meeting week:

- Update the spreadsheet by capturing all the resolutions properly.
- Submit a separate document capturing the Section 11 modified text and appropriately refer to the comments that are being addressed by
This document
- Identify the technical issues that are remaining or need to be improved/discussed
- Discuss/raise the key issues during next week's telecon
- Resolve all the remaining issues during F2F meeting, if not earlier
- Generate the draft D02 within a week after the January F2F meeting

In order to achieve the above goals, Anthony and Charlie need help. Please review the current version and provide the feedback.
We need to improve the approval ratio in next re-circ.

Regards,
_Subir


-----Original Message-----
From: h chan [mailto:h.anthony.chan@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:29 PM
To: Das, Subir; Yoshihiro Ohba
Cc: Charlie Perkins; Antonio de la Oliva; ???; ???
Subject: RE: Latest documents

We have a discussion today with Subir and Charles.

While the documents have been greatly improved compared with D01, a lot of materials have been rewritten. Putting the documents to ballot now is expected to get many comments so that the approval rate in the vote may not see a significant improvement.

It is therefore suggested to give more time for the ad hoc group to spend to check the documents especially because a lot of materials were newly written. The intention is that the ad hoc group members should be confident that the document will be good enough to pass (at least 75% yes votes). Then it is ready to go for recirculation.

Thank you all for your continued help, and Happy New Year.

H Anthony Chan

-----Original Message-----
From: Das, Subir [mailto:sdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 8:18 AM
To: h chan; Yoshihiro Ohba
Cc: Charlie Perkins; Antonio de la Oliva; ???; ???
Subject: RE: Latest documents

Anthony,
Thanks for updating it. It looks much better now. If you get time, pl.
go over once again and insert additional texts as appropriate. I am providing some examples:

Line 49: The remarks should say 'The text is updated as " The primitives are defined to transport security establishment information between the mobile node MN and the source PoS via MIH"

Line 50: The meaning of SPoS --> OPoS, for "Originating PoS" is not clear. It seems that the comment #78 is similar and that resolution is much clearer. Same resolution may apply here.


Line 83: "IP_TUNN_MGMT" is not a complete answer. it needs to first mention that the correct term is "IP_TUNN_MGMT" and it is corrected throughout the document. Then need to answer the question, "Where else in draft is this term used?

Line 120: Unclear whether "Insert Following Data Type to Table F.5" is acceptable to resolve comment. What are we trying to say here? Does this mean the comment is rejected? If it is rejected, remarks should be updated accordingly. I actually do not understand what the current remarks mean.


Remember, the comment resolution document should be self explanatory.

Thanks,
_Subir


-----Original Message-----
From: h chan [mailto:h.anthony.chan@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:50 AM
To: Das, Subir; Yoshihiro Ohba
Cc: Charlie Perkins; Antonio de la Oliva; ???; ???
Subject: RE: Latest documents

Thanks, and I must admit that I did not realize before that the excel sheet is part of the official document. There were so many comments with important technical issues that all the teleconference had concentrated on the technical issues requiring discussion. The line by line comments were left to resolve offline by different people. The excel sheet did not have track changes so that informal notes were written on the excel sheet.
Now is the time to clean up the excel sheet.

There may be more to check tomorrow morning.

H Anthony Chan


-----Original Message-----
From: Das, Subir [mailto:sdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:13 PM
To: h chan; Yoshihiro Ohba
Cc: Charlie Perkins; Antonio de la Oliva; ???; ???
Subject: RE: Latest documents

Anthony,
I would suggest to update the comment resolution spread sheet.
Remember the spreadsheet is the official record on how the comments are resolved. For every LB and SB, we need to maintain it properly. Not only voting and SB pool members will look at this, EC members will also look at this when they will refer to every LB result. So if we do not do this job correctly we will have issues.

First of all, remove columns such as 'Assign to' and 'Done'. I understand that for internal use, you kept these but they shall not be in the final comment resolution file. Change all red color text to black.
In addition there are several discrepancies on 'remarks' column.
For example,

Row 31: This will take a while. -- Do not understand the meaning of this.
Anthony: I think this was an earlier personal note. The resolution was according to the comment. So the remark should be blank.

Row 39: paragraph has been rewritten -- This should be correctly referred. It should either copy the entire paragraph or refer to the paragraph number where it is rewritten or refer to a document number that captures the new text.
Anthony: The comment is on the description of 7.4.30 MIH_N2N_LL_Transfer which has been removed. The new primitives are 7.4.30 MIH_Prereg_Xfer and the described functions only appear for the individual primitives.
I think one way is to say that the comment has been superceded by the resolution of another comment resulting in changing to MIH_Prereg_Xfer.
Charles, do you know the comment number?

Row 45: signaling flow diagram added -- Same as before.
Anthony: Change remark to -- Added cross reference "(See Annex N)"

(The remark in Comment 139 is: Replace by subclause 5.5.8 "Single radio handover reference model and signaling flow" with new flow diagram and description of signal flow)

Row 71: entire Section 11 was re-written -- Same as before
Anthony: Change to "superceded by comment #181"

Row 80: text added -- Same as before
Anthony: Change to "superceded by Comment #167 (Gateway service has been removed)"

Row 85: Could not find text in current document -- If this is the case, the comment should be first rejected and then give the reason.
Anthony: Change to "The amendment in this is entire subclause this comment addresses has been removed"


Row 95: updated editing instruction, but I am not sure why the comment claims there is no editing instruction. The change is not meant to include a new table. -- The remarks should not say like "but I am not sure why the comment claims there is no editing instruction. "
Anthony: Change to: superceded by comment #167 (Gateway service has been removed so that the amendment to this subclause has been removed)


Row 120: Unclear whether "Insert Following Data Type to Table F.5" is acceptable to resolve comment -- Then why the comment is accepted.

Row 130: Delayed until resolution vis-à-vis MIH_LL_Transfer signaling sequence. - Does this mean the comment is not resolved. However, the resolution says 'accept'


Hope this helps,

-Subir
-----Original Message-----
From: h chan [mailto:h.anthony.chan@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:56 PM
To: Yoshihiro Ohba; Das, Subir
Cc: Charlie Perkins; Antonio de la Oliva; ???; ???
Subject: RE: Latest documents

(1) I thought the intention of remark is for additional remark. The commenter has already made the suggested resolution. If we accept the comment and follow the suggested resolution, there is no need to write additional remark.

If this understanding is incorrect, please correct.

Charles has been using a new column of whether the comment resolution is done and by who. It is helpful for him to keep track of the progress. If there are any missing information about the comment resolution, the person who has solved the comment may fill that in.

(2) There is change in 9.2.2. Yet there is no change to 9.2.3 in 802.21a. That is why it is not there.

I had added some blank clause numbers because the Word template behaved weird in the table of contents whenever we skip the subclause number. In this particular case of Clause 9, the only subclause being amended is 9.2 and not 9.1 and not 9.3. In order to generate the heading 9.2, We had generated the headings for Clause 9 and a blank subclause 9.1. Last time, we did not generate the blank subclause 9.1 and caused weird thing in the table of contents. It behaves even more weird this time .. The ToC would be generating more weird thing this time. The amendment follows the style manual strictly. Every change needs to be accompanied with an editing instruction. So the blank subclause heading 9.1 without editing instruction is only to overcome the weird ToC problem in the Word program. As far as the amendment is concerned, having a blank subclause heading (9.1) without editing instruction on it and not having the subclause heading (9.3) both mean there is no change to the corresponding subclause in 802.21a. I certainly does not mean to delete 9.3, because there is no editing instruction to say so.

It is the first time that IEEE has provided a Word template, and I guess we might be the first to use it. There are plenty of problems in this IEEE provide template, and we are now stuck with it. I tried with workarounds but am also trying to follow the editing instruction. I hope that clarifies this.

H Anthony Chan

-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yoshihiro.ohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:42 AM
To: Das, Subir
Cc: h chan; Charlie Perkins; Antonio de la Oliva; ???; ???
Subject: Re: Latest documents

Sorry for my slow response since I am on vacation now.

The comment resolution spreadsheet is ambigous about what exact change is made for each comment, which makes me (and probably most voting
members) quite difficult or almost impossible to tell what is the actual line-by-line remedy for each comment is. Therefore, I cannot say that the latest draft is ready for re-circulation.

I was wondering what is the cause of this problem, and I figured out that a "Resolution" is merely showing a "Status" instead of the actual resolution.. The "Remarks" column does not show detailed resolution either.

A Resolution should have one of the following:

- No additional text is needed if the Suggested Remedy is accepted *as it is*.

- Either an accepted line-by-line change or a reference to a contribution that provides an accepted line-by-line change, if the the Suggested Remedy is accepted with some modification.

BTW, I have still issue with section 9.2.2. Editorial instruction for
9.2.2.1 is rough and section 9.2.3 is missing. The latest speadsheet still has colored text.

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba



(2012/12/29 6:23), Das, Subir wrote:
> BRG members,
> Please find the attached documents that I received today.
> I would like to request you to review them and let me and Others know
> if there are still issues with the updated version. After I sent the
> mail two days back, document has been updated. Before I start the LB,
> I need to know your views. I understand that this is holiday time but
> please take some time to review. Your response is needed by Monday
> noon, Dec 31st, US EST.
>
> Regards,
> _Subir
>
>
>
>