Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Two comment resolution documents have been upload

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hi Mark,

I am involved in TGah comment resolution, and I was instructed by the TGah editor that

if I provide a proposed draft text for the CID in the resolution document other than the resolution tab,

then the resolution status should be "revised" even though I agree with the proposed change

by the commenter. The resolution status should be "accept" if there is no proposed draft text in the resolution document

other than the resolution tab.

The reason is that it will help the editor to easily identify whether he sholud check other part of the resolution

document to see the proposed text or not.

If the resolution status is "accept", then the editor just need to see only the resolution tab.

If the resolution status is "revised", then he should check the other part of the documet to see the proposed text.

It is often helpful to provide a draft text even though the assignee agree with the commenter since the text can cleary indicate

which part of the draft has been changed, and how it looks in the consolidated text, so I often provide draft text

even though I fully agree with the proposed change by the commenter and make the status 'Revised'.

Now I am a little bit confused with using "revised" in TGah and TGai..

I was doing the comment resolution as TGah members do in TGah as far as I know.

Anyway, If TGai members think that the resolution sholud be changed to "revised" to "accept"

and if it is allowed to change the resolution status even though the motion has been already passed,

I am O.K to change the resolution status.

Many thanks,

/Jason

보낸 사람 : "Mark Rison" <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
보낸 날짜 : 2014-11-06 08:21:02 ( +09:00 )
받는 사람 : STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
참조 :
제목 : Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Two comment resolution documents have been uploaded

If the group agrees with the principle of the comment and proposed change,

the question is whether the commenter’s proposed resolution is unambiguous or not.

If the group believe it is unambiguous, they should indicate an “accepted” resolution.

If they do not do this, they are being lazy, and are forcing the commenter to

refer to the submission and determine if they are happy with the resolution.

I strongly object to “revised – see document xyz” when laziness is the reason.

Thanks for your support, Adrian.

In the particular comment cited, the proposed change is unambiguous and

there is no reason for a “revised”.

For the avoidance of doubt, the comment cited was just an example.

I believe a number of other resolutions should be "accepted" too,

and those which look like they should be but aren't should say why

they aren't (e.g. the commenter missed one instance, or referred to

the wrong location, etc.).

Mark

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600

Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601

ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

From: Stephens, Adrian P [mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 5 November 2014 23:12
To: Mark Rison; STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Two comment resolution documents have been uploaded

Hello Mark and TGai,

I’ll weigh in with some commentary.

If the group agrees with the principle of the comment and proposed change,

the question is whether the commenter’s proposed resolution is unambiguous or not.

If the group believe it is unambiguous, they should indicate an “accepted” resolution.

If they do not do this, they are being lazy, and are forcing the commenter to

refer to the submission and determine if they are happy with the resolution.

I strongly object to “revised – see document xyz” when laziness is the reason.

In the particular comment cited, the proposed change is unambiguous and

there is no reason for a “revised”.

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

From: *** 802.11 TGai - Fast Initial Link Set-Up *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rison
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:59 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Two comment resolution documents have been uploaded

Hello Jae Seung,

Thank you for these resolutions.

None of them are "accept", but a number of the "revised" ones don't indicate

why they were not just "accept"s. Just picking one example:

The width of the PHY Support Criteria subfield is 3, not 2.

Change the width of PHY Support Criteria subfield in the Figure 8-574e to 3.

Revised -

Agree with the commenter.

TGai Editor to make changes shown in 14/1498r1

For all the proposed resolutions like this, i.e. which are "revised"

but don't indicate why the change proposed by the commenter couldn't

just be accepted, please specify what the difference is between the

change proposed by the commenter and the change you propose.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600

Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601

ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

From: *** 802.11 TGai - Fast Initial Link Set-Up *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ???
Sent: 5 November 2014 15:59
To: STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Two comment resolution documents have been uploaded

Dear all,

I revised two documents:

- 11-14/1497r1, LB 204 Resolution to Some CIDs on Clauses 10.1.4.3.2, 10.1.4.3.4, and 10.1.4.3.5

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-1497-01-00ai-lb-204-resolution-to-some-cids-on-clauses-10-1-4-3-2-10-1-4-3-4-and-10-1-4-3-5.doc

- 11-14/1498r1, LB 204 Resolution to Some CIDs on Clause 8.4.2.173

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-1498-01-00ai-lb-204-resolution-to-some-cids-on-clause-8-4-2-173.doc

Just some minor changes were made to rev.0.

Best Regards,

/Jason (Jae Seung)

보낸 사람 : "이재승" <jasonlee@xxxxxxxxxx>
보낸 날짜 : 2014-11-05 23:58:42 ( +09:00 )
받는 사람 : STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
참조 :
제목 : [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Two comment resolution documents have been uploaded

Dear all,

The following two documents have been uploaded for the comment resolution.

- LB 204 Resolution to Some CIDs on Clauses 10.1.4.3.2, 10.1.4.3.4, and 10.1.4.3.5

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-1497-00-00ai-lb-204-resolution-to-some-cids-on-clauses-10-1-4-3-2-10-1-4-3-4-and-10-1-4-3-5.doc

- LB 204 Resolution to Some CIDs on Clause 8.4.2.173

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/11-14-1498-00-00ai-lb-204-resolution-to-some-cids-on-clause-8-4-2-173.doc

I want to present these documents on Wednesday PM1.

Best Regards,

/Jason (Jae Seung)

_______________________________________________________________________________