Re: [STDS-802-16] comment submission format for P802.16-REVd recirc
Itzik,
I think David speaks a lot of sense and agree with all his logical
conclusions.
I also acknowledge that, as always, procedural reasons may prevent us
following the most logical way forward.
Best regards,
Duncan
>From: David Castelow <DCastelow@AIRSPAN.COM>
>Reply-To: David Castelow <DCastelow@AIRSPAN.COM>
>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] comment submission format for P802.16-REVd
>recirc
>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:19:56 +0100
>
>Itzik,
>And that is my point: that the problems all arise from the delta.
>
>Given the short time for the recirc (and maybe for procedural reasons as
>well), I didn't think I could suggest reissue of the delta, but the delta
>contains a number of errors and we now have to infer what the changes are.
>
>I realise that the formal recirc has been issued as based on the D4delta.
>The implication is that ALL such errors need to be flagged as problems.
>Alternatively we have to use D4 and D3 to check that the differences have
>been applied correctly and then re-write the resulting comments as changes
>to D4delta resulting in extra work PLUS the headache of uncertainty as to
>what D4delta actually contains (e.g. that it contains as explicit text the
><<Figure 1>> line for example).
>
>That is why I was asking if we could use D4 instead of D4delta, though
>maybe procedural reasons may preclude it.
>
>Regards
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
>Sent: 02 April 2004 12:15
>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] comment submission format for P802.16-REVd
>recirc
>
>
>David,
>
>The problems that you have pointed out comes from the Delta creation
>process:
>- The automatic delta process does not mark changes inside figures/tables,
>but presents each changed table/figure as two tables/figures (the new after
>the old), and advance the auto numbering for both (that should explain the
>numbering and referencing issues)
>- Regarding figure 1, it exists as hidden in D4, I didn't manage to get rid
>of it when I issued D4.
>
>The main problem of working with the clean version, is that the sponsor
>ballot members are using the delta document as baseline.
>
>Itzik.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of David Castelow
> > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:21
> > To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: 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.
> > >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger