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

Re: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.16Rev2 to RevCom

Thanks, Geoff.

I'll also note that the recirculation did not address changes to the average date rates or economics.


On 2009/02/18, at 06:27 AM, Geoff Thompson wrote:


I don't take issue with your ruling but I would appreciate it if you would add a little more meat to the bones.
Were any of the (average?) data rates within scope of the recirculation?

Were the "economics" of the system covered in the draft? Ifso, were they within the scope of the recirc?

My opinion would be that "improvements over 802.11 systems" would be a "distinct identity" issue and not a draft issue. Thus it would need to be the subject of a comment at initial ballot, not during a recirc.

Congratulations on the successful completion of your ballot.


At 11:12 PM 2/15/2009 , Roger B. Marks wrote:
To: 802 EC reflector
cc: 802.16 reflector

Dear EC Colleagues:

I am writing to report on the status of P802.16Rev2, per the Clause 19
Conditional Approval granted on 14 November.

The conditions have been met.

Sponsor Ballot Recirculation #3, including the review of P802.16Rev2/ D9, ran from 30 January - 14 February. All Disapprove voters at the
start of the recirc converted to Approve during the recirc.

During the recirc, one new Disapprove vote was received, with one
associated comment submittal. However, I have ruled the comment
invalid. Per Clause 19, I am reporting the details.

Page: [none]
Line: [none]
Subclause: [none]
Comment: This standard needs major revisions as it does not represent
the needs of the marketplace.
Proposed Change: needs modifications to support much lower average
data rates, improvement over 802.11 systems, and better economics
Resolution Status: Out of Scope
Resolution Detail: The 802.16 Working Group Chair and the 802.16
Maintenance Task Group Chair, acting with the authorization of the
802.16 Working Group, have ruled this comment Out of Scope of the
recirculation since it does not meet the requirements of Subclause of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, which states
that comments associated with a 'do not approve' vote "shall be based
only on the changed portions of the balloted document, portions of the
balloted document affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted
document that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with
negative votes." Furthermore, the comment fails to fulfill the
requirement stated in Subclause of the IEEE-SA Standards Board
Operations Manual that a Disapprove vote "must be accompanied by one
or more specific objections with proposed resolution in sufficient
detail in a legible form so that the specific wording of the changes
that will cause the negative voter to change his or her vote to
'approve' can readily be determined."

No other comments, valid or invalid, are associated with Disapprove
votes. The final approval ratio, as reported by MyBallot, was 165
Approve, 1 Disapprove.

Since the conditions have been met, I am proceeding with submittal for
the RevCom meeting of 18 March.



Roger B. Marks
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access < >

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.