Dear reviewers,
If you have sent your findings to me, many thanks.
If you have not sent your findings to me, today is the deadline.
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: Stephens, Adrian P
Sent: 27 October 2014 14:51
To: Dorothy Stanley (DStanley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); Michael Montemurro (montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx); Peter Ecclesine (pecclesi); Edward Au (edwardau@xxxxxxxxxxx); Qi, Emily H; brianh@xxxxxxxxx; Carlos Aldana (caldana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); Dan N Harkins
- Aruba Networks, Inc. (dharkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); 'Fei Tong (Fei.Tong@xxxxxxx)'; Gabor Bajko; jon.rosdahl@xxxxxxx; qi.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Stephen McCann (smccann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx); wookbong.lee@xxxxxxx; 'Kim, Youhan'
Cc: stds-802-11-tgm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Review kickoff for REVmc D3.3
Dear all,
Now is the time for the D3.3 review kickoff. The deadline for the review is Monday 10th November (2 weeks from now).
There are three classes of folks addressed here:
1.
Volunteer reviewers (Dorothy, Peter and MikeM)
2.
First listed submission authors
3.
Editors
I have assigned all technical comments associated with a submission to the first author for reviewing,
split the remaining technical comments among the three volunteers.
The editorials have been assigned so that ED_A reviews ED_Q’s work and vice versa, and my edits
are split between them for review.
Except for the technical for review (Submission Authors), each review has a separate tab (comment group).
Here is a summary of the totals – only yellow highlight is relevant
|
LB
|
Owning Ad-hoc
|
Comment Group
|
Unassigned
|
Discuss
|
Review
|
Assigned
|
Resolution Drafted
|
Ready for Motion
|
Approved
|
Submission Required
|
Grand Total
|
|
202
|
EDITOR
|
Editorials
|
|
|
|
8
|
4
|
|
|
1
|
13
|
|
|
|
Editorials for Review by ED_A
|
|
|
|
1
|
35
|
|
142
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
Editorials for Review by ED_Q
|
2
|
|
|
1
|
29
|
|
163
|
|
195
|
|
|
|
Editorials needing TGmc input
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
|
|
Editorials objected to
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
technical for review (Dorothy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
technical for review (MikeM)
|
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
82
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
Technical for review (submission author)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
65
|
For the technical submissions, I’d ask the first author to review, or find a replacement:
|
Query2
|
|
Ref
|
CountOfCID
|
Author
|
CIDs
|
|
1-14-0780-02-000m-lb202-stephens-
|
6
|
Adrian Stephens
|
3036, 3104, 3116, 3153, 3332, 3341
|
|
1-14/780
|
4
|
Adrian Stephens
|
3005, 3011, 3013, 3069, 3293
|
|
1-14/930
|
5
|
Brian Hart
|
3074, 3203, 3204, 3208, 3265
|
|
1-14/933
|
10
|
Carlos Aldana
|
3034, 3076, 3108, 3110, 3111, 3112, 3115, 3266, 3268, 3375, 3469
|
|
1-14/1002
|
5
|
Carlos Aldana
|
3033, 3206, 3207, 3267, 3468
|
|
1-14-0916
|
2
|
Dan Harkins
|
3037, 3040
|
|
1-14/922
|
1
|
Dorothy Stanley
|
3615
|
|
1-14/1041
|
7
|
Dorothy Stanley
|
3518, 3568, 3647, 3665, 3740, 3742, 3743
|
|
1-14/902
|
2
|
Fei Tong
|
3174, 3175
|
|
1-14-0902-02-000m-
|
5
|
Fei Tong
|
3161, 3162, 3163, 3165, 3167
|
|
1-14/1024
|
2
|
Gabor Bajko
|
3151, 3269
|
|
1-14/1004
|
1
|
Jon Rosdahl
|
3768
|
|
1-14/923
|
1
|
Michael Montemurro
|
3218
|
|
1-14/0923
|
1
|
Michael Montemurro
|
3322
|
|
1-14/919
|
1
|
Qi Wang
|
3262
|
|
1-14/918
|
1
|
Qi Wang
|
3261
|
|
1-14/1058
|
1
|
Stephen McCann
|
3774
|
|
1-14/1003
|
4
|
Wookbong Lee
|
3025, 3134, 3480, 3484
|
|
1-14-1283
|
5
|
Youhan Kim
|
3166, 3176, 3177, 3189, 3190
|
|
1-14/921
|
1
|
Youhan Kim
|
3309
|
The attached contains the comments, resolutions, edit notes and a tab for your findings.
Instructions:
The redline suffers from artefacts resulting from the frame-maker comparison process (see the redline
notes at the start of the redline draft). If you find a problem in the redline, locate it first in the clean draft before reporting it.
Fill in any defects you observe in the defects spreadsheet supplied and email your copy of this spreadsheet
to your technical editor as soon as you have finished your assignment.
How to report Defects
For each defect fill in a new row of the defect spreadsheet.
The columns of the spreadsheet are:
|
Reviewer
|
Your name goes here
|
|
Sequence number
|
Invent a number 1 up. These are used to cross reference between comments from different reviewers.
|
|
Page
|
The printed page number (i.e. what shows on the page) from the clean review draft.
It is not necessarily the same as the .pdf page number.
Do not quote the page number from the redline draft as you will create a hopelessly confused editor, who wants to spare his one
remaining grey cell to for the problem in hand.
|
|
Line
|
You can guess
|
|
Clause
|
Clause/Subclause/Annex number of material containing defect
|
|
Related CID(s)
|
CIDs of comment(s) resolution causing this defect
|
|
Comment
|
Your description of the defect
|
|
Proposed Solution
|
What needs to be done to fix it
|
|
Editor Response, Editor Notes, Pending action
|
Ignore these fields.
|
Please fill in as much data as necessary. But there is no need to slavishly fill in all the fields.
Just provide enough detail to make it unambiguous.
If you find yourself spending a lot of time reporting a systematic error, it may save you time to discuss
with the editor whether this is actually an issue first.
Please read the Editor’s Notes at the start of the draft. They explain the use of tags and cross-reference
styles. These have provoked unnecessary review comments in the past.
Also, please note that when a tag appears in a cross-reference caption (e.g. 7.2 (Ice-cream vendors(#1234)),
it will appear as plain (i.e., not green) text. There’s nothing I can do to change this. Please do not report this as a defect.
Goals of the review
The goals of this review are to answer the questions:
-
Did the editor make the changes indicated in the resolution?
-
Did the editor make any non-editorial changes?
-
If you believe that any change is non-editorial, please highlight it. I will ensure that any such comment is brought to motion in TGmb with special notice so that
it gets proper attention.
-
Are the changes introduced by the resolution flagged with the sequence (#1234)? (these are show with a green colour). Is a flag the correct one?
-
Note, some changes are deliberately not flagged, where this is so, this is indicated in the “Edit Notes” field of the comment.
-
(when working on speculative changes only) Sanity check on proposed resolutions.
-
Does it make sense to you?
-
These resolutions will be brought to TGmc for approval. If you disagree with the resolution, by all means discuss with the editor. Any unresolvable disagreements
on resolutions will need to be addressed in that group.
Non-Goals
The following is not a goal of the review:
-
To identify new technical bugs in the standard (save them somewhere safe for the next letter ballot). I cannot remedy any such defect as my license as editor does
not permit me to make technical changes except under explicit instruction of the task group.
-
To identify new editorial changes with substantial scope. Anything that is more than a trivial editorial change will need a letter ballot comment.
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
_______________________________________________________________________________
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.