Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
All,
I have similar concern about some of the comments not completely addresses similar problems as illustrated below.
Comment #517 refers to bits reversed in Fig 253 compared to Fig 254. That is acceptable as it is. ONLY
correction required is that Labelling on "LSB" label and "MSB" label need to be swapped.
Following figures also require label swapping
-Page 358, Fig 159(Also initialization value is reversed as well as text on line 50 on the same page)
-Page 431, Fig 197
-Page 443, Fig 204
-Page 607, Fig 260
-Page 619, Fig 262
Comment #518 & #530 address removing extra bit in Fig 261. Similar problem exists in Fig 254 and needs to be fixed.
Comment #536, we suggest "LSB" label and "MSB" label be swapped to correct Fig 262 (Page 619). Also lines 52-59
on same page need to refer b1...b11 compared to b0...b10 currently illustrated.
Thanks
Lalit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 7:48 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Here is a concern about comment #410
In the comment text I found the following reason for comment:
"The PHY Synchronization field was accidentally removed going form IEEE
802.16d/D3 to IEEE 802.16d/D4. This is an editorial change.
OFDM PHY sync field is missing elements."
When reviewing the relevant database (80216-04_11r2), I found the
following instruction of comment #305 from Nico (which was accepted)
"Set PHY sync field to be empty (don't delete it).
Add Frame Duration Code and Frame Number as mandatory fields to DCD for
OFDM."
This is exactly what was implemented from D3 to D4. So the contents of
the PHY Synchronization field was not removed "accidentally".
In my view:
(a) The above makes the comment technical and not editorial.
(b) The comment is out of scope, since no relevant change was made at
the last recirculation.
The only problem I can see, is the initialization of the IV for DES,
which should be solved in a different way at the errata stage.
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:34 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Dear All,
I would like to start rising issues with the current comments.
First issue is comment #405.
The commenter is requesting to add the following sentence to the draft
"If the number of bands is less than or equal to 12, it is the same as
the original one. However, if it is 24 (1024 FFT in 10 MHz), two
contiguous bands are paired and 12 logical bands are newly defined.
Hence, band (2n) and band (2n+1) are paired and the paired band is the
n-th band."
I really don't understand this kind of comment with the context of TGd,
since we don't have 1024 FFT in the standard.
I would like to receive clarification on this, or better, a withdrawal
of the comment.
Regards,
Itzik.
-----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: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:17 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5
Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
When I posted the P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation comments, I said that
I would announce the on-line comment resolution process in a few days
and told you to expect the decision-making process to be quick. I
hope you have had time to read the comments.
The process is described in IEEE 802.16-04/31
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_31.pdf>. Members of the IEEE
802.16 Working Group <http://ieee802.org/16/members.html> are the
members of the Ballot Resolution Committee and eligible to vote. They
should read IEEE 802.16-04/31 for details. It explains the need to
make a quick decision on these comments.
The voting deadline is 5 June AOE.
Regards,
Roger
>The P802.16-REVd Recirc #2 balloting period has closed.
>
>The good news is that we are down to one Disapprove voter (Nico van
>Waes). He submitted one Technical Binding comment, which was a
>reiteration of a previous comment.
>
>The bad news is that we received a total of 171 comments.
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_30.zip
>
>The following show the members of the Sponsor Ballot Group who
>submitted comments, along with the number of comments:
>
>Tal Kaitz 2
>Itzik Kitroser 11
>Yigal Leiba 44
>Cor van de Water 3
>Nico van Waes 1
>
>I received additional comments from other individuals who do not
>belong to the Sponsor Ballot Group:
>
>Raja Banerjea 3
>Changhoi Koo 68
>Lalit Kotecha 14
>Wonil Roh 25
>
>
>We will now move on to an on-line comment resolution process in
>which the members of the Ballot Resolution Committee will be the
>Members of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group. I will provide details in
>a few days. Expect the decision-making process to be quick.
>
>For those of you who are wondering where this leaves us: we have met
>the RevCom conditions for D5 to be approved as an IEEE standard on
>24 June. If we reject all of these comments, no further
>recirculation will be necessary. However, we also have the option to
>accept comments, produce draft D6, open a third recirculation, and
>remove D5 from the June RevCom agenda.
>
>Roger