| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear
Colleagues, Our
editors have revised several of previously-posted proposed responses. The
updated file is posted at http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2008_01/3av_0801_comments_d1_0_proposed.pdf. Below is the list of changes: 1) Comment 77: Issue: Comments
345, 77, and 394 all have PROPOSED ACCEPT response, which means that the
suggested remedy will be used exactly as is. However, suggested remedies are
different: one comment suggests using 1000 Mb/s, others suggest Gb/s. Thus, it
is not possible to accept all three of them - one or more comments should be
PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. Action:
#77 - Response PROPOSED ACCEPT is
changed to PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE 2) Comments 397, 289, 312,
326, 391, 334, 321, 324, 285. Issue:
All these comments propose ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE, but no alternative remedy was
suggested by the editor. If the editor does not offer a new remedy different
from the suggested remedy, then he must either reject or accept the comment. It
is perfectly OK to reject a comment if no specific remedy is offered by the
author. During meeting discussion, the final response may change from
what the editor proposed initially. Action: #397, 326,
391, 334, 321, 324, 285 - Response
PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE is changed to PROPOSED ACCEPT #289, 312 - Response PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE is
changed to PROPOSED REJECT 3)
Comments 116 and 349. Issue:
One response says to change "presence of the optional Discovery
Information field" to "optional presence of the Discovery Information
field". Another comment later suggests using "presence of the
optional Discovery Information field" again. Action:
response to comment 349 references back to response to comment 116. 4)
Comments 270, 300, 330 Issue:
Editor rejects the suggested remedy, but the response is written PROPOSED
ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE Action:
Response PROPOSED ACCEPT IN
PRICIPLE is changed to PROPOSED REJECT 5)
Comments 117 and 271. Issue:
One response says to use "downstream" and "upstream",
another says to add DS and US to the list of acronyms. Action:
Response to #271 references back to #117 6)
Comment 275, 294, 400, 398 Issue:
Editor proposes a new (different) remedy, but the response is written PROPOSED
ACCEPT (or PROPOSED REJECT) Action:
Response PROPOSED ACCEPT (or
PROPOSED REJECT) is changed to
PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE 7)
Comments 113, 308, and 76 Action:
Responses to these comments should point back to comment #4, which was
discussed and approved by the TF in November. 8)
Comments 9 and 68 Action:
These comments are reclassified as Technical Please, download
and review the new file with the updated proposed responses. Thank you, Glen Kramer |