| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Roger and All,
In Reply comments I found many proposed resolutions "superceeded by
#NNN".
Is there a reasonable interpretation for such proposal? Comment NNN
still may be resolved as "accepted" or "rejected".
My understanding of the
procedure is that resolution of comment MMM may be stated as "superceeded
by the resolution of comment NNN".
Thanks
Vladimir
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B.
Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG]
Sent: Monday,
April 26, 2004 10:10 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject:
[STDS-802-16] Reply Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4; Revised Comments
invited
We received 1305 reply comments to the comments received in
the
P802.16-REVd/D4 Sponsor Ballot recirculation.
These reply comments
have been added to the comment package, which is
now
available:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_20r2.zip
The
file is set to open to a layout showing the replies, in
abbreviated form. If
more than three replies were submitted for a
given comment, you will need to
scroll to see them all. For a more
spacious view of the reply comments, click
"See reply details" above
the colored Reply Comment table.
In
accordance with the announced comment resolution
procedures:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_18r1.pdf
those who
submitted the original comments are now invited to
reconsider their comments
in the light of:
(a) the reply comments
(b) other comments in the
database that address relevant issues
To submit your revised comment,
please follow the same procedure for
submitting Reply Comments, using the
fields "Recommendation ", "
Proposed Resolution ", " Reason for
Recommendation ", and "
Recommendation by". Email your revised comment files
to
ballot16d@wirelessman.org by Wednesday 28 April AOE (Anywhere
on
Earth).
ADVICE TO COMMENTORS:
In light of the defined
procedure, there will be no opportunity for
the Ballot Resolution Committee
(BRC) to alter the revised comments;
the BRC can only accept or reject them.
Therefore, those who
submitted comments are strongly encouraged to study the
database, not
only with respect to their own comments but also with respect
to
related comments. If you have a concern that related comments
might
affect yours, please contact the other balloter to coordinate
your
responses. Please ensure that your Suggested Remedy is
fully
explicit, with detailed changes by page and line number, so that
the
editor may implement it without doubt as to your intent. If
your
comment refers to an external contribution, please refer to
its
explicit contribution number, including the revision number, at
<http://ieee802.org/16/tgd/#Contributions>.
Please
remember that your revised comment will be voted upon,
verbatim, by the BRC.
The BRC members, when considering their vote,
will look to see whether your
comment makes a convincing argument in
favor of the need for a change to the
draft. They will also be
looking for evidence that you have fully addressed
all concerns
raised in the reply comments and have considered
alternatives
proposed there. You are encouraged eliminate any doubt the
BRC
members have doubts about the change.
Please contact me with any
questions.
Roger
--
Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:marks@nist.gov> +1 303 497
3037
National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO,
USA
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless
Access
<http://WirelessMAN.org>
This mail passed through
mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This
footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************