Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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

All,

 

As another user of “superceded”, my intent was to indicate that I thought the comment was a duplicate or subset of the referenced comment and that I thought that the resolution I had specified for the referenced comment dealt with the designated superceded comment as well.

 

I would encourage everyone to refrain from specifying a Recommendation of superceded, withdrawn, or rejection unless, as suggested in the process document, you have been able to confer with other commenters on the same subject matter and together you have come to a conclusion on what the Proposed Resolution should be and against which comment the Recommendation/Proposed resolution will be specified.

 

In the event such a discussion did not take place, review the reply comments for your comment and those of the related comments and specify a Proposed Resolution/Recommendation that you believe is appropriate for the entire comment set. Further, as part of your entry in the Reason for Recommendation field, list the comments that you believe are members of the set. In this second case, specify a Recommendation of reject or withdrawn only if you feel the issue need no longer be a subject of discussion.

 

Bob

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 8:13 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Reply Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4; Revised Comments invited

 

Vladimir and Roger,

 

I have marked several comments as superceded, in most of the cases, it was because comments where duplicates of others (which I recommended to be superceded by).

I fully agree with Roger's analysis that in such cases, people probably should withdraw such duplicated comments, since there is no sense of having different resolutions for duplicated comments (and in duplicate I mean the case in which two people proposed same solution for same problem).

Also there were some cases where one comment contained solution to problem X, and other comment contains same solution to problem X and in addition solutions to problems Y and Z. From my perspective, it is obvious that the first comment must be superceded by the second.

In all other cases, I agree with Vladimir, that the proposal was to supercede by the resolution of the other comment, and it was made to indicate the commenter and the group about this scenario.

 

Best regards,

Itzik.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:41 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Reply Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4; Revised Comments invited

 

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.
************************************************************************************