Re: [STDS-802-16] Reply Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4; Revised Comments invited
Title: Re: [STDS-802-16] Reply Comments for IEEE
P802.16-REVd
Vladimir,
I agree with your analysis.
I think that, when people proposed "Superceded by #NNN,"
they probably meant that they would like to see #NNN accepted and that
they believed that the current comment would thereby become irrelevant
(which essentially means that they did not want to accept it). But
that's just my interpretation.
"Superceded", "Approved, Duplicate", and
"Rejected" all advocate against accepting the comment in the
current form, though they have a different spin on how they feel about
it. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter much what reply tag someone
chose. We won't be voting on accepting the reply comments; we will be
voting on accepting revised comments. If I found that one of my
comments was better addressed by, or somehow made irrelevant by,
another comment, I might submit a revised version in which I marked it
Withdrawn. In this case, the comment need not be voted upon. If I
recommended that my own comment be Rejected, I suspect that the voters
would probably comply.
You ask whether a comment could be Superceded by a comment rather
than by a comment resolution. I think than, in some cases, it could.
For instance, let's say that my comment said to fix the spelling of a
word, and your comment said to fix that spelling in two places. Then
your comment would supercede mine. Regardless of whether the group
accepted your comment or not, mine could, and should, be simply
erased. In this case, I might revise my comment to recommend that it's
resolution be Superceded. However, Withdrawn would make things easier
for the BRC.
Roger
At 11:35 +0300 04/04/26, Vladimir Yanover wrote:
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". If we don't have a resolution of NNN meanwhile,
then there is no sense in "superceeding". Please
advise.
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.
************************************************************************************
This mail was sent via
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.
************************************************************************************