Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution voting
Yigal,
In comments #160 and #161, you define a permutation zone. The definition
in #159 is generic for any 'zone'. So I do not see a conflict.
Please can you clarify.
BR,
jose
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Yigal Leiba
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 5:04 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution
voting
I would like to propose adding to that list comment #159.
Although I appreciate the good intention behind the comment of
clarifying
the different OFDMA permutations, the comment tries to modify text that
at
least in part is obsolete, loses some of the clarifications that where
made
by other comments (#160, #161), and wrongly defines the term 'zone'.
Yigal
-----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, May 06, 2004 12:48 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution voting
Personally, I recommend voting Reject on a number of comments that
are meaningless because they have been superceded. I don't think you
should waste time thinking about them:
Comment 171: This was superceded by 170; the lines can't be changed
because they were deleted by 170.
Comment 230: This was superceded by 229; the lines can't be changed
because they were deleted by 229.
Comment 52: The entire change was already made in Comment 53. Comment
52 won't change that either way.
Comment 169: This says to accept the changes in 168. Those changes
have already been accepted. Comment 169 won't change that either way.
Comment 232: This says to accept the changes in 202. Those changes
have already been accepted. Comment 232 won't change that either way.
All of these should have been withdrawn, in my opinion.
If I'm mistaken, please say so.
Roger