stds-802-16: +++ Call for Comments on Editor's Draft Consolidation of IEEE802.16/802.16a/802.16c
Here are the first concrete steps in Plan B:
(a) I have posted, as IEEE P802.16-2003/D0, the Editor's Draft
Consolidation of IEEE 802.16/802.16a/802.16c:
This document has a lot of editorial problems arising from the
consolidation. However, I have not tampered with the editor's draft.
The PDF includes many notes from the editor, calling out assumptions
she made, questions she had, and recommendations of editorial changes
we should consider. If I would generate a new PDF from the FrameMaker
source, even to do something as simple as adding line numbers, we
would lose the editor's embedded comments.
(b) I have posted a letter from the editor summarizing some
(c) I have compiled cross-reference tables showing the relationship
between figure and table numbers in the consolidated version, as
compared to the numbers in the three source standards:
(d) I am now opening a Call for Comments on IEEE P802.16-2003/D0:
The document is open to comments on two topics:
(1) Issues that arise as a result purely as a result of the
consolidation of the standards. These will be primarily editorial.
(2) Issues, technical as well as editorial, appropriate to the
revision of this document, as described in the revised 802.16d PAR
submitted by the 802.16 WG and IEEE 802:
Prepare your comments using Commentary for resolution during Session
#27. The comment submission deadline is September 1. Associated
document contributions should use TGd contributions numbering
("C802.16d/03-XX) and are subject to the same September 1 deadline.
Email your exported Commentary comments to "email@example.com" with
the subject line "Consolidation Call for Comments"
Strictly observe this email addressing requirement; we are going to
have six simultaneous comment processes running this month, and there
is a lot of room for confusion.
Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Chair, IEEE 802.16 WG on Broadband Wireless Access <http://WirelessMAN.org>
National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO, USA
tel: +1 303 497 3037 fax: +1 509 756 2642
>As I mentioned, NesCom today refused to approve the P802.16d
>Revision PAR, for one reason only: they couldn't decide whether to
>remove the "d" from the designation. The decision is now postponed
>until September 10 (the last day of Session #27).
>Because of motions at Session #26, we are limited in what we can do:
>"Following approval by NesCom of the revised P802.16d PAR, to open a
>Working Group Letter Ballot #13 on a draft Revision, to be created
>by taking a consolidated version of IEEE Std 802.16, 802.16a, and
>802.16c and then editing in the changes developed in Letter Ballot
>#11/Recirculation Ballot #11a."
>"Pending a non-approval of the revised P802.16d PAR, to instruct the
>TGd Editor to incorporate the resolutions contained in IEEE
>802.16-03/18r7 into the next TGd draft P802.16d/D3".
>802.16 WG Vice Chair Ken Stanwood and I talked about where to go
>from here. We discussed this with the TGd Chair and Editor. Here is
>our Plan B:
>(0) We actually do have a draft consolidated version of IEEE Std
>802.16, 802.16a, and 802.16c. Back in May, I asked the IEEE-SA
>editorial staff for help in assembling such a document by the end of
>July. They agreed. On August 1, they delivered a draft. It has some
>problems to fix, but it is incredibly easier to read than the three
>amendment alone. The intent was for the editor (Itzik) to use this
>as a basis of the first draft of the 802.16 Revision. However, he
>(1) Itzik will do as instructed, developing P802.16d/D3 in amendment
>form. However, he will update the editorial instructions to point to
>the consolidated 802.16/802.16a/802.16c document. This will be a lot
>easier to read than the previous TGd draft, whose editorial notes
>pointed to multiple sources.
>(2) We will use P802.16d/D3 as the basis of another recirculation
>(Recirc #11b). Since recircs need not be the full 30 days, we'll
>have a little less time crunch. We'll aim for August 8 - Sept 1,
>with a few days for reply comments before Session #27. The recirc
>will include access to the consolidated document so everyone can
>understand the changes.
>(3) We will open, separately, a Call for Comments on the
>consolidated document. We will be open to comment on the editorial
>issues (how well the consolidation was done). However, we will also
>be open to comment on issues of technical revision. This will give
>us a forum to discuss issues that we could have included in a
>Revision ballot but we can't include in Recirc #11b. These comments
>will be collected in a separate database from the Recirc #11b
>comments, but both sets can be resolved by TGd, since TGd will
>ultimately be responsible to integrate both set of resolutions.
>WIth this plan, I think we'll be able to progress. At Session #27,
>we can agree to a set of comment resolutions that will lead to a
>draft Revision that we can release for WG Letter Ballot. We even
>have time for a recirc of that ballot before Session #28 in
>November. In the ideal case, we could (conceivably) go to Sponsor
>Ballot shortly thereafter. In other words, it's possible that this
>NesCom problem might not cost us any time off our schedule. Or, it
>All of this bureaucratic stuff is getting to be a real nuisance. On
>the other hand, it doesn't have to slow us down. Let's keep our eye
>on the ball, and move on.