Re: [STDS-802-16] comment submission format for P802.16-REVd recirc
Roger,
Given that there are errors in the delta version that do not exist in the vanilla D4 document, is it wise to use the delta document as the basis for resolution of comments?
The case in point is Page 401 of D4, page 404 of D3 and page 450 of D4delta, where there are a number of errors in D4delta that appear to be a result of the delta process, not the standard as written in D4.
The faults I have seen in this vacinity are: (refering to D4delta page numbers)
Page 450, Line 3: Reference to incorrect table number (says 193, should be 192 according to D4).
Page 450, Lines 9-63: No redline marking to show changes.
Page 450, Line 7: Table number is shown as 207 (should be 186 according to D3).
Page 451, Line 4: Table number shown as 208, should be 192 according to D4.
Page 451, Line 64: Spurious "Figure 1-OFDM randomizer downlink initialization vector for burst# 2...N" included.
This is not present in either D3 or D4.
These ought all to generate comments that will slow down the comment resolution process, and there may be many others: once I had seen these I stopped using the delta document.
Rather than do this, or have the editor generate a new D4delta, please can you consider using the vanilla D4 document as the basis of comment resolution.
Regards
David Castelow
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: 01 April 2004 18:48
Subject: comment submission format for P802.16-REVd recirc
Dear IEEE 802.16 Working Group Members,
If you prepare comments in the P802.16-REVd/D4 recirc, please observe
the following:
(a) use _Commentary_ format
(b) when referencing Page/Line numbers, refer to the document under
recirc: P802.16-REVd/D4delta. In other words, reference the marked-up
version, not the clean version of the draft. Otherwise, the BRC will
be confused.
Thanks,
Roger
P.S. The recirc opened today, as promised.
>Dear IEEE 802.16 Working Group Members,
>
>At Session #30, the IEEE 802.16 Chair and Vice Chair were tasked to
>complete the details of a framework process for resolving comments,
>without a face-to-face meeting, in the Sponsor Ballot Recirculation
>of IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4.
>
>Ken and I have developed a complete procedure based on electronic
>dialog centered on our "Commentary" database software. We think this
>can work very well. The full documentation, including a detailed
>schedule, is in:
>
>"Comment Resolution Procedure for Sponsor Ballot Recirculation of
>IEEE P802.16-REVd"
>IEEE 802.16-04/18 <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_18.pdf>.
>
>According to the procedure, the comments will be resolved by a
>Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC) composed of the all the current
>members of the IEEE 802.16 WG. This procedure will require time and
>attention of the members, with, in some cases, relatively short
>turnaround times. I suggest that you study the procedure carefully
>and try to keep free time on your calendars, particularly in the
>period 16 April - 8 May (and beforehand for those submitting
>comments). Depending on the level of comment during recirc, this
>procedure may place significant demands on the time and attention of
>the WG members.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>
>P.S. I have been promised that the IEEE-SA Balloting Center will
>open the recirc by tomorrow. The procedure assumes they will.
>