Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++Urgent motion to approve 802.18 doc+++
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:18 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++Urgent motion to
> approve 802.18 doc+++
> I Approve.
> However, the following comments are to make the response consistent.
> During the closing EC meeting discussions last Friday, I
> understood that this document would be sent as if coming from
> the whole of 802, whereas, footnote 2 clearly indicates that
> these are the views of 802.18 TAG. Is it the former or the
> latter? This should be made consistent.
This is editorial ... 802.18 will be replaced with 802 and the "who we
are/disclaimer" footnotes will be changed accordingly to the IEEE-SA
> Also, Carl mentions that he (or the 802.18 TAG Chair) is not
> empowered to make substantive changes but again is it an 802
> response or the TAG response?
The document was created as an 802.18 document. When the ballot closes, if
approved by the EC as an 802 filing, it will be edited as above to indicate
it's an 802 filing (it will retain the 802.18 doc number, with the revision
number "bumped" and will be archived on the 802.18 website in the "meeting
documents" area). The version that goes to the FCC will not have the
802-style headers and footers, and a copy of the document as filed will be
sent to Paul Nikolich and Judy Gorman as required.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.