Re: [STDS-802-16] Revised Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4
Yes,
Thanks a lot.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 3:53 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Revised Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4
Is 20r4 OK?
>Hi Roger,
>
>It seems that something has happened in the comments gathering process.
>The revised comments lack the original formatting (like strikeots,
>underlines), and also some of the text is gone.
>
>That makes some of the revised comments unreadable and there are quite few.
>
>See for example #131, #110.
>
>Regards,
>Radu
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 1:29 PM
>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Revised Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4
>
>
>Jon,
>
>You are right.
>
>I'll post a new version once I'm sure I didn't mess up any other ones.
>
>
>Roger
>
>At 13:11 -0400 04/04/29, Jonathan Labs wrote:
>>Roger,
>>
>>It looks like an error occured somewhere for the text for the proposed
>>resolution to comment 020, 037, and 103. The text had included strikouts
>>and underlines to show explicitly what changes were being recommended. For
>>example, the proposed resolution for 037 was supposed to read:
>>
>>Change:
>>
>>An RNG-REQ shall be transmitted by the SS at initialization and periodically
>>to determine network delay
>>and to request power and/or downlink burst profile change. The format of the
>>RNG-REQ message is shown
>>in Table 19. Compressed RNG-REQ message shall be used in OFDM PHY in Initial
>>Ranging Interval as
>>specified in (Table 20). In other PHY modes the RNG-REQ message may be sent
>>in Initial Ranging and data
>>grant intervals.
>>
>>back to:
>>
>>An RNG-REQ shall be transmitted by the SS at initialization and periodically
>>to determine network delay
>>and to request power and/or downlink burst profile change. The format of the
>>RNG-REQ message is shown
>>in Table 19. The Compressed RNG-REQ message shall be used in OFDM PHY in
>>Initial Ranging Interval as
>>specified in (Table 20). In other PHY modes the RNG-REQ message may be sent
>>in Initial Ranging and data
>>grant intervals.
>>
>>When I open my copy of 16-REVd_Labs_Jon.USR, I still see the strikeouts and
>>underlines.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>>Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:54 AM
>>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>Subject: [STDS-802-16] Revised Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4
> >
> >
> >The deadline for revised IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4 comments has passed.
> >The data is available here:
> > http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_20r3.zip
> >
> >The revised comments are in the fields "Recommendation", "Proposed
>>Resolution", "Reason for Recommendation", and "Recommendation by".
>>
>>We also received a number of new and revised contributions. I've
>>filed most of these on the TGd web page. I'll catch up with the last
>>three soon.
>>
>>The Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC) will now begin considering each
>>of these proposals. Each member may vote either "Accept" or "Reject"
>>on each revised comment. See the procedure document for details.
>>
>>I will email the voting instructions to the BRC separately (I've had
>>some technical difficulties, but I have a backup plan). In the
>>meantime, I suggest that you carefully review the database and begin
>>discussing the final comments with your colleagues as you deem
>>appropriate.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>>We received 1305 reply comments to the comments received in the
>>>P802.16-REVd/D4 Sponsor Ballot recirculation.
>>>
>>>These reply comments have been added to the comment package, which
>> >is now available:
>> > http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_20r2.zip
>> >
>> >The file is set to open to a layout showing the replies, in
>> >abbreviated form. If more than three replies were submitted for a
>>>given comment, you will need to scroll to see them all. For a more
>>>spacious view of the reply comments, click "See reply details" above
>>>the colored Reply Comment table.
>>>
>>>In accordance with the announced comment resolution procedures:
> >> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_18r1.pdf
>>>those who submitted the original comments are now invited to
>>>reconsider their comments in the light of:
>>>
>>>(a) the reply comments
>>>(b) other comments in the database that address relevant issues
>>>
>>>To submit your revised comment, please follow the same procedure for
>>>submitting Reply Comments, using the fields "Recommendation ", "
>>>Proposed Resolution ", " Reason for Recommendation ", and "
>>>Recommendation by". Email your revised comment files to
>>>ballot16d@wirelessman.org by Wednesday 28 April AOE (Anywhere on
>>>Earth).
>>>
>>>ADVICE TO COMMENTORS:
>>>
>>>In light of the defined procedure, there will be no opportunity for
>> >the Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC) to alter the revised comments;
>>>the BRC can only accept or reject them. Therefore, those who
>>>submitted comments are strongly encouraged to study the database,
>>>not only with respect to their own comments but also with respect to
>>>related comments. If you have a concern that related comments might
>>>affect yours, please contact the other balloter to coordinate your
>>>responses. Please ensure that your Suggested Remedy is fully
>>>explicit, with detailed changes by page and line number, so that the
>>>editor may implement it without doubt as to your intent. If your
>>>comment refers to an external contribution, please refer to its
>>>explicit contribution number, including the revision number, at
>>><http://ieee802.org/16/tgd/#Contributions>.
>>>
>>>Please remember that your revised comment will be voted upon,
>>>verbatim, by the BRC. The BRC members, when considering their vote,
>>>will look to see whether your comment makes a convincing argument in
>>>favor of the need for a change to the draft. They will also be
>>>looking for evidence that you have fully addressed all concerns
>>>raised in the reply comments and have considered alternatives
>>>proposed there. You are encouraged eliminate any doubt the BRC
>>>members have doubts about the change.
>>>
>>>Please contact me with any questions.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>
>>--
>>
>>Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:marks@nist.gov> +1 303 497 3037
>>National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO, USA
>>Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
>> <http://WirelessMAN.org>
>
>
>IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
>individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may
>contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
>disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is
>not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
>delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified
>that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>communication in error, please notify Redline immediately by email
>at postmaster@redlinecommunications.com.
>
>Thank you.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Redline immediately by email at postmaster@redlinecommunications.com.
Thank you.