Re: +++802SEC Ballot: Forward 802.16.2 to Sponsor Ballot
>Could you please summarize the 4 negative ballots and what was done to
>change them to approve? (I looked through the detailed comments, but I
>gave up trying to extract the above information.)
On the original Letter Ballot, we had four negative voters (Florea,
Germon, Lewis, and Roehr) with a total of 17 "Binding" comments among
them. The comment numbers are 14, 20, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49,
50, 53, 54, 57, 63, 95, and 97, as documented in IEEE 802.16-01/01
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_01.pdf>. If you want the
details, I'm going to request that you open the file and search for
In Recirculation Ballot #2a, Florea and Lewis were satisfied with the
resolutions and voted Approve. Roehr was unsatisfied with the
resolution and voted Disapprove again. Germon did not vote, although
he indicated informally that he accepted the resolution. An
additional voter, Hamilton, objected to one resolution and went
negative. As a result of this, there were two binding comments
recorded in Recirculation Ballot #2a (one each from Roehr and
Hamilton); Germon was still recorded as Disapprove though he was
unofficially on the Approve side.
Following #2a, we held an interim session and resolved the #2a
comments. Hamilton accepted the resolution of his comment. Roehr
could not attend, but we came to agreement by email. Therefore, in
Recirc Ballot #2b, there were no remaining negatives to circulate.
The only responses we received on #2b were "Approve with no comments"
from Hamilton, Roehr, and Germon. That left no Disapproves on record.
You can find the details of the final Roehr and Hamilton comments in
IEEE 802.16-01/06 <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_06.pdf>.
For your convenience, I have included a summary below.
I hope this helps to answer your question. If you need more
information, please let me know.
*Roehr's Suggested Change: [In Table 8-1] Change Heading last column
from "Spacing for acceptable performance"to "Seperation at which
Coordination is Necessary"
Balloter's Reason: 60 km spacing is NOT "acceptable performance".
This is the real essence of my NO vote in original round (comment 34)
but unfortunately I tied it to first place 60 km was mentioned, in
vain hope that change would ripple through document. It appears that
did not happen. With this change I will (reluctantly, because I fear
"tone"is wrong elsewhere) change my NO to an Accept.
Resolution: Change heading of column to "Spacing at which
interference is below target level (generally 6 dB below receiver
Change heading in column 3 of table 4-1 to correspond with this change.
*Hamilton's Suggested Change: D/U =-5dB for adjacent channel; D/U=-20
dB for second adjacent channel
Balloter's Reason: If the wording of the new text really is intended
to indicate that the Undesired carrier level is 20 dB stronger than
the Desired carrier, then the new proposal is a dramatic change from
the old (although confusing) spec of 0 dB. It is not apparent how the
proposed -20 dB D/U ratio is justified and it is a major design
It is not clear how these levels are justitifed as "spillover" and if
the proposed tolerance has been analyzed, or is intended to apply for
all modulation types covered under the 802.16.1 proposal (e.g. 64
Resolution: [This is rather long. See pp. 6-7 of IEEE 802.16-01/06].