[STDS-802-16] P802.16/Cor2 ballot planning
I'd like to make some comments regarding planning for Cor2 balloting.
As you know, there is a proposal to not pursue Cor2 into Sponsor
Ballot. However, I don't see a need to act on that until March. For
the moment, I think it's clear that we need to continue with the WG
ballot. This is going to require some planning at Session #47. Let me
sketch out the possibilities.
The first steps [for which I see no alternative if we want to
progress] are to resolve any comments, authorize the development of
D2 based on those resolutions, and authorize a 15-day recirc. But we
also need to plan, in London, what will happen next.
If we decide we want to proceed directly to Sponsor Ballot, then the
15-day recirc would need to finish cleanly, with no comments that
demanded resolution and recirculation. It's my informed opinion that
this will not happen. However, let's assume it did. Then we could
submit that draft for 30-day Sponsor Ballot. However, if it would be
quite unlikely to conclude Sponsor Ballot before Session #48. [There
are seven weeks between sessions. We need to allow 45 days of
balloting. And it takes IEEE several days to initiate the Sponsor
Ballot once we've sent them the draft. And, of course, we need to
allow time for editing the draft. We rarely get this done in less
than a week, and we know that it sometimes takes much longer.] In
this case, we'd probably end up unable to do any useful technical
work on Cor2 at Session #48. At Session #48, we could try to figure
out what to do next.
On the other hand, what if we do get comments in the recirc? It seems
to me that it would be a good idea to set up a plan to resolve those
comments, instead of waiting until Session #48. With some planning,
it ought to be possible to resolve the comments, create a D3, and run
a second 15-day recirc before Session #48. If all went well, we would
have no comments in that second recirc, and we could call the WG
letter ballot over at Session #48. If we had comments, we could
resolve them at that meeting. In either case, we could decide at
Session #48 how we wanted to proceed.
So, my suggestion is that the Maintenance Task Group come up with a
plan to resolve, in mid-February, any comments arising from the
recirc. We have tried various methods of between-session comment
resolution, with varying degrees of success. A lot of factors go into
the decision, and it becomes a judgement call, with good judgement
required. I suggest that the Maintenance TG reserve judgement until
its see what next week's comments, and comment resolutions, look like.
Any plans need to be approve by the WG at the Closing Plenary.
Roger
On Jan 11, 2007, at 02:46 PM, Jonathan Labs wrote:
> All,
>
> There have been a number of questions regarding this call for comments
> on the P802.16/Cor2/D1 draft that has just been released. This email
> intends to clarify the views of both Roger and myself on the Cor2
> draft
> and give the reasoning behind this call.
>
> In our view, we are not ready to start thinking in terms of Sponsor
> Ballot. First of all, according to the proposal of Marks, Kiernan, and
> Labs (see http://dot16.org/CSUpload//upload/WG_db/C80216-07_001.pdf),
> there may be no Sponsor Ballot. Secondly, we think it is far from
> clear
> that the document is ready for Sponsor Ballot anyway. If there is
> to be
> a Sponsor Ballot, it would have to run after the March meeting,
> where we
> could get EC approval.
>
> So then the question arises as to whether it's best to submit comments
> for discussion next week, or wait for the recirc. In our view, now is
> better, because comments can then be reviewed in a meeting instead
> of in
> some electronic procedure. Clearly, there is no time for a full review
> of the draft, but there is no harm in getting started with comments
> that
> people are aware of.
>
> We would recommend that priority be placed on reviewing:
>
> (1) The implementation of the prior change requests. This was probably
> not clear-cut; Joe could have made some errors, or misinterpreted
> ambiguous instructions. Also, Joe has mentioned that he found cases of
> conflict between CRs.
>
> (2) The prior CRs themselves; perhaps, on reflection, those prior
> decisions were less than optimum.
>
> In our view, these are the most time-critical issues.
>
> We would suggest that you place a relatively lower priority on new
> issues, though we would not propose to rule them out of scope.
>
> Roger and Jon
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>> Sent: January 10, 2007 5:19 PM
>> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [STDS-802-16] P802.16/Cor2/D1 Draft; Call for Comments
>>
>> The first Cor2 draft (P802.16/Cor2/D1) is now available using the WG
>> member password:
>> http://ieee802.org/16/pubs/80216_Cor2.html
>>
>> Thanks to Editor Joe Schumacher, who put a lot of time into this
>> draft. It weighs in at 484 pages.
>>
>> This document comes too late for a formal WG letter ballot recirc,
>> which would require a minimum of 15 days. However, since we have
>> significant time scheduled for the Maintenance Task Group to meet
>> during Session #47, we are providing the opportunity to review the
>> draft and submit comments for consideration next week.
>>
>> Here are the comment rules:
>>
>> *Only Commentary 2 format <http://dot16.org/Commentary> is acceptable
>>
>> *In Commentary, identify the ballot as "LB23" and the Document under
>> Review as "P802.16/Cor2/D1".
>>
>> *Export your comments as a ".cmtb" file.
>>
>> *Observe the deadline of Monday 15 January 2007 at 11 pm London time:
>> <http://tinyurl.com/yabyvu>.
>>
>> *Upload comments to the <http://lb23.wirelessman.org>.
>> [Note: We will transition to the on-site upload server over the
>> weekend, but I'll try to remember to keep the above URL active for
>> those who are not on-site.]
>>
>> Roger