Re: [802SEC] two revised 802.16 PARs for consideration at July 802 Plenary
At 11:57 AM 6/20/2003 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>I welcome your comments, as soon as possible but no later than 5 pm PT on
>(a) I wasn't sure how to number the PARs. Jodi Haasz suggested simply
>"802.16.2" and "802.16", with no letters. The 802 PAR Numbering Scheme
><http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg00046.html> suggests leaving the letters. I
>decided to follow Jodi's advice with the first drafts.
It is the custom of staff/NESCOM(with nothing in any procedures that I
could ever find to back it up) to label Revision PARs as "P[Std.#] Rev".
I have resisted this in the past as I wanted all changes to 802.3 to be
trackable in a single linear address space because (among other reasons)
802.3 Maintenance PARs waffled back and forth between amendments and
revisions (and now corrigenda) for reasons that are somewhat arbitrary,
external and difficult to remember years later (e.g. Staff says it is time
to do a revision.).
The linear tracking has worked well for us but has required us to buck
In one case, partially because we labeled a revision as P802.3aa (the other
reason is too arcane to go into here) staff felt that we had not revised
When we tried to make up for it with a subsequent PAR,
We designated it:
Maintenance Revision #6
NESCOM couldn't cope with that and wanted to change the designation to
(Only distinguishable from other revs by what years it is done in.)
802.3 resisted and prevailed in getting the designation to fall within our
standard designation, resulting in "P802.3ag".
For what it is all worth, I think our way is better.