stds-802-16: NesCom results on P802.16d and P802.16.2a PARs
As you recall, the 802 Executive Committee (EC) agreed at the end of
Session #26 to forward to NesCom two PARs from our Working Group:
P802.16d and P802.16.2a. Each was a revision of an earlier PAR,
converting the project from an Amendment into a Revision.
You will also recall that, when we originally submitted the PARs,
they didn't have the letters "d" and "a" in the designations. I told
the EC that, although 802 policy preferred using the letters, IEEE-SA
staff had suggested that I leave them off. During Session #26, EC
members wanted the letters added back in, and that's how the EC
approved the PARs. Personally, I don't care, and I don't think anyone
in 802.16 does.
The two PARS were discussed on the agenda of yesterday's NesCom
"Early Consideration" conference call. What ensued, apparently, was a
major discussion over whether or not to include the letters in the
PARs designation. The result were, I would say, frustrating. Here
they are:
(1) NesCom's recommendation on P802.16.2a was "Approve conditional to
the PAR Number being finalized at the September 2003 NesCom meeting."
This means that we can go ahead with Sponsor Ballot using the "a".
Not a huge problem, only another nuisance and some fuzziness. I
expect the ballot to open early next week. I'll send more details in
another note.
(2) NesCom's recommendation on P802.16d was to not approve the PAR
and instead to put it on the agenda for NesCom's next face-to-face
meeting on September 10.
It's not clear why NesCom didn't just pick a number and go on. It's
also bewildering that NesCom didn't conditionally approve P802.16d
like they did P802.16.2a. Apparently, their reasoning was that
P802.16d could be delayed because it wasn't about to go to IEEE
Ballot. No one bothered to ask whether deferral would affect us. In
fact, it will. I send a separate note on where we go from here.
Roger
>Much to my disappointment, SA staff (Jodi, Yvette) resurfaced the
>PAR numbering issue at the NesCom telecom today which forced 802.16d
>to be deferred until the Sept NesCom meeting (because it is not
>going to ballot) and 802.16.2a was conditionally approved pending
>resolution of the project numbering scheme (because it is about to
>go to ballot).
>
>Between now and the Sept NesCom meeting we will need to work with
>IEEE-Staff and NesCom to convince them of the value of having unique
>project numbers on all projects, regardless if they are ammendments
>or revisions. This will be an uphill battle, Jodi is very much
>against it because it will make it difficult for her to manage
>projects. I don't completely understand why it is such a big issue
>to her--I'll try to spend time with her to better understand it.
>
>Roger--please draft a rationale for why 802 needs/wants unique
>project numbers and send it to me for presentation to NesCom.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul
>
>