stds-802-16: 802.16d: Plan B
As I mentioned, NesCom today refused to approve the P802.16d Revision
PAR, for one reason only: they couldn't decide whether to remove the
"d" from the designation. The decision is now postponed until
September 10 (the last day of Session #27).
Because of motions at Session #26, we are limited in what we can do:
"Following approval by NesCom of the revised P802.16d PAR, to open a
Working Group Letter Ballot #13 on a draft Revision, to be created by
taking a consolidated version of IEEE Std 802.16, 802.16a, and
802.16c and then editing in the changes developed in Letter Ballot
#11/Recirculation Ballot #11a."
"Pending a non-approval of the revised P802.16d PAR, to instruct the
TGd Editor to incorporate the resolutions contained in IEEE
802.16-03/18r7 into the next TGd draft P802.16d/D3".
802.16 WG Vice Chair Ken Stanwood and I talked about where to go from
here. We discussed this with the TGd Chair and Editor. Here is our
Plan B:
(0) We actually do have a draft consolidated version of IEEE Std
802.16, 802.16a, and 802.16c. Back in May, I asked the IEEE-SA
editorial staff for help in assembling such a document by the end of
July. They agreed. On August 1, they delivered a draft. It has some
problems to fix, but it is incredibly easier to read than the three
amendment alone. The intent was for the editor (Itzik) to use this as
a basis of the first draft of the 802.16 Revision. However, he can't.
So...
(1) Itzik will do as instructed, developing P802.16d/D3 in amendment
form. However, he will update the editorial instructions to point to
the consolidated 802.16/802.16a/802.16c document. This will be a lot
easier to read than the previous TGd draft, whose editorial notes
pointed to multiple sources.
(2) We will use P802.16d/D3 as the basis of another recirculation
(Recirc #11b). Since recircs need not be the full 30 days, we'll have
a little less time crunch. We'll aim for August 8 - Sept 1, with a
few days for reply comments before Session #27. The recirc will
include access to the consolidated document so everyone can
understand the changes.
(3) We will open, separately, a Call for Comments on the consolidated
document. We will be open to comment on the editorial issues (how
well the consolidation was done). However, we will also be open to
comment on issues of technical revision. This will give us a forum to
discuss issues that we could have included in a Revision ballot but
we can't include in Recirc #11b. These comments will be collected in
a separate database from the Recirc #11b comments, but both sets can
be resolved by TGd, since TGd will ultimately be responsible to
integrate both set of resolutions.
WIth this plan, I think we'll be able to progress. At Session #27, we
can agree to a set of comment resolutions that will lead to a draft
Revision that we can release for WG Letter Ballot. We even have time
for a recirc of that ballot before Session #28 in November. In the
ideal case, we could (conceivably) go to Sponsor Ballot shortly
thereafter. In other words, it's possible that this NesCom problem
might not cost us any time off our schedule. Or, it might.
All of this bureaucratic stuff is getting to be a real nuisance. On
the other hand, it doesn't have to slow us down. Let's keep our eye
on the ball, and move on.
Roger