Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm



So, if I understand you correctly, this EC ballot has been initiated prior
to BRC resolution of these comments. The only thing that has been done to
resolve Recirc2 comments is that you have predetermined that one or more of
these comments associated with disapprove ballots are out of scope of the
recirculation. So, the EC ballot and BRC resolution of the comments will
complete contemporaneously?


I believe that it is common practice, when soliciting approval to go to
Revcom, to present to the EC all outstanding negative comments including
their resolutions, from all circulations of the ballot. I did not see such
material in the documents provided. Also, you obviously are not in a
position to provide that information for the unresolved negative comments in
Recirc2. Revcom package or not, should not the EC have this information in
order to base a decision?


You comment that 802.16 has similar language to the language Max identifies
in the 802.20 draft. IEEE 802.16-2005 does have the following sentence in
Clause 5, Convergence Sublayer.

'The packet CS is used for transport for all packet-based protocols such as
Internet Protocol (IP), Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP), and IEEE Std 802.3
(Ethernet) as defined in'

The language is merely identifying potential upper layer protocols supported
by the 802.16 convergence sublayer, it is given as a list of examples only.
Support for PPP, and any specific implementation of PPP is not normative for
802.16. Again, the item is only mentioned as part of the inter-layer binding
mechanism in the 802.16 convergence sublayer. It is the only place in the
standard that PPP is ever mentioned. In fact, in the current Revision of the
802.16 standard, the example protocols are removed from the sentence.


By my reading, I believe that the sentence Max identifies is a fairly
innocuous, bland statement declaring that 802.20 625k provides a method to
support end-to-end PPP. Perhaps Max believes that the statement makes PPP
conformance mandatory. I don't know. You would have to talk with Max to
ascertain the basis for his complaint. If Max felt that the language of the
sentence was somehow mandating PPP conformance, he might view this as
overspecification, a layer violation. But I am speculating. Of course we
cannot know because you have summarily dismissed the comment without
discussing the matter with Max, or with your Ballot Resolution Group.
Anyway, if Max's contention was some aspect of layer violation and
overspecification at higher layers, then that would be within the complaint
scope of Geoff's and Tony's previous comments. Max's comment is simply more


Regardless, could you please address the other comments from Todor Cooklov
of Hitachi and Subburajan Ponnuswamy that you have also chosen to disallow?
These comments are clearly very similar to other comments filed in every
circulation of the draft, by numerous commenters. This is also on the matter
that Bob indicated in his email will likely be very contentious at Revcom.
The Chair did not disallow such comments in Recirc1, and you did not
disallow similar comments from other members in this same recirculation. Why
have you singled out the comments from these two individuals for special


Also, you indicate that you considered all three reasons given in the
IEEE-SA OM for balloters to make valid comments in your deliberations to
disallow comments. Could you please provide additional clarity on why these
identified comments-comments that are clearly very similar to several other
negative comments in the ballot-have been disallowed? The third reason for
making valid comments clearly states that comments may be based on 'portions
of the balloted document that are the subject of the unresolved negative



Phillip Barber


-----Original Message-----
From: Klerer, Mark [] 
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 8:51 AM
To: Phillip Barber; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to




To clarify, the "Out of scope" comments were reviewed in all dimensions.


The balloting process is designed to allow for convergence by progressively
narrowing what is in scope of a recirculation as the issues are closed (or
have not been opened). The comment by Mr. Riegel that you are challenging
relates to the use of PPP. It is not the same issue and not the same concern
as addressed by the other comments. I do not believe that dealing "with the
same matter, in general" (whatever that may mean precisely) gets the comment
back into scope. (I would also note in passing that a similar reference to
PPP is used in 802.16, a group in which you hold a task Group chair


The situation with the other comments you are referring to is similar, for
instance the comment by Mr. Cooklev asks for a change in the PAR scope and
then in the document on a subject matter that had NEVER before been on the


Also please be aware that this in NOT the Revcom Package. The final Revcom
package will be amended after Comment resolution based on following the
Revcom checklist.


Best regards,




-----Original Message-----

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Phillip Barber

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:55 AM


Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to




Actually, on further review, your change of vote as part of the Recirc2 is



Your comment 38 in Recirc1, a technical comment tied to your Recirc1

disapprove vote, covering the matter addressed by Max, was part of the

Recirc2 recirculation. This comment deals with the same matter, in general,

that Max identifies in his comment. The resolution of this comment can be

used as the basis for Max's comment. The fact that you changed your vote as

part of Recirc2 does not remove your comment 38 from the Recirc2 ballot

package, and comments in Recirc2 can be made based on the resolution of your

comment 38 from Recirc1.


In any event, your comment 38 references Geoff Thompson's comment 451, and

Geoff is still a disapprove voter, so Max's comment can be equally tagged to

Geoff's comment.



Phillip Barber



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:01 AM

To: Phillip Barber


Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding

802.20 to RevComm


Philip -


If you are going to use my votes and comments (or anyone else's for

that matter) to bolster your argument, then you will need to be

accurate. I have no outstanding disapprove comments - my vote on the

most recent recirculation ballot was "approve".





At 05:30 09/05/2008, Phillip Barber wrote:

>While I do not disagree that text in that section may not have changed

>during the most recent recirculation, I can say that at least outstanding

>disapprove comments by Tony Jeffree are also directed to this same general

>matter. So Max's comment is open and relevant to outstanding disapprove

>comments. Disallowing this comment, and especially converting Max's vote to

>'Abstain' from 'Disapprove' is improper and irregular.



This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This

list is maintained by Listserv.



This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This
list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.