Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Response to CID 6806
Hello Mark,
I think that you raise an important issue. My 2c. Because of the large number of comments and maybe because of the multiple resolutions addressing the same text section, the editorial work is very difficult and prone to errors. I think that the originator of a comment has the main responsibility to make sure that his comment was addressed, and to verify that the resolution was correctly reflected into the draft. In other words, each of us has the responsibility to help the editor to do his job.
Cheers,
George
-----Original Message-----
From: *** 802.11 TGai - Fast Initial Link Set-Up *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rison
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 4:43 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Response to CID 6806
Thank you for this research, Lee.
> I am sorry that the 2 approved comments were not implemented in D3.0.
> I have a system in place to keep track of each motion/comment and the
> status of it during editing but somehow these 2 were missed.
I think this is the key issue. The system seems to be flawed. So how do we know whether any other motion/resolution was missed or mis-implemented?
The three CIDs I gave were just ones I could easily identify by searching through the D3.0 comments (for "CID <digit>").
[I've looked at the most recent version of the D2.0 comment resolution spreadsheet (14/0565r24) and the Edit Status cells are all blank, and the Edited in Draft cells are all blank or "2,1". So that gives no reassurance either.]
TGm has a system whereby the correct implementation of agreed changes is verified by someone other than the editor(s). It seems to me that TGai needs to adopt a similar system, and needs to apply it to D3.0 to determine whether any other motion/resolution was missed or mis-implemented.
Regards,
Mark
P.S.: I've found another one, searching for "CID<digit>": CIDs 6089 to 6094 assert CID 4436 was not applied.
--
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: *** 802.11 TGai - Fast Initial Link Set-Up ***
> [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lee Armstrong
> Sent: 10 December 2014 21:12
> To: STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Response to CID 6806
>
> To all,
>
> Mark Rison responded to CID 6806 by stating that some of his comments
> are in response to a failure to implement resolutions from the
> previous ballot. I have reviewed this and found the following:
>
> CID 6500 points out that CID 4744 was not implemented. This is
> correct, for some reason the approved change was not implemented in
> D3.0 but was included in D3.1 during the November meeting.
>
> CID 6164 states that the resolution to CID 4746 was not implemented,
> the 4746 resolution was: "Revised: P73L30 Change "scanned ESSs and
> are not already members of the BSSDescriptionSet." to "scanned ESSs.
> NOTE that the STA is not required to return a BSSDescriptionFromFDSet
> parameter for any BSS that produces a BSSDescriptionSet in this scan."
> The text in D3.0 is: "... ESSs. The STA is not required to return a
> SSDescriptionFromFDSet parameter for any BSS that produces a
> BSSDescriptionFromFDSet in this scan.
> thus, the change was implemented in D3.0 however one
> editorial change was to delete "NOTE that" and there was an editorial
> error in inserting "BSSDescriptionFromFDSet" instead of
> "BSSDescriptionSet", I don't know for sure, but think that this was
> cut/pasting instead of retyping the whole term and picking the wrong
> one to copy.
>
> CID 6886 "According to 11-14/0565r24, CID 4693 is accepted, but no
> change is made." This change was not in D3.0 but was included in D3.1
> during the November meeting.
>
> I am sorry that the 2 approved comments were not implemented in D3.0.
> I have a system in place to keep track of each motion/comment and the
> status of it during editing but somehow these 2 were missed. I
> apologize for this.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Lee Armstrong
> Armstrong Consulting, Inc.
> 132 Fomer Road
> Southampton, MA 01073
>
> (C) 617 620 1701
> (F) 413 527 9146
_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION:
Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAI and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this
CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION:
Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAI and
then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector
press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________