[STDS-802-16] response to questions about recirc procedures and scope
>Dear Roger,
>
>I have two questions regarding the D4 Recirc procedure and your
>reply to my comment. I would greatly appreciate your response:
Tassos,
I'll copy my response to the reflector because it is of general interest.
>The first question has to do with the procedure. Are we allowed to
>revise and resubmit our contribution (PDF file) along with our
>revised comment, or do we have to present all revisions in the form
>of a revised comment?
The contribution, as referenced by document number in your comment,
is part of your comment. You can revise your contribution and provide
the number of the revised document within your revised comment.
>The second, has to do with your reply to comment #19 that I had
>submitted (presented in C802.16d-04/66). Your recommendation was to
>reject this as out of scope. Would it be possible to elaborate more
>on why you ruled it as out of scope?
I did not "rule it out of scope". I stated my recommendation, as a WG
member, that it be rejected as out of scope.
>The purpose of the proposal is to correct a restriction we believe
>was unintentionally set in D1, as in earlier versions of the draft
>there was no specific requirement to use 3-bit FSN for non ARQ CIDs.
>Therefore, we view this more as a correction to D4 which will
>prevent undesirable reassembly issues rather than a change that
>could trigger further recirculation.
Let me explain.
P802.16-REVd/D3 ballot has already been approved, pending
recirculation of comment resolutions. In other words, D3 passed
ballot, but some changes were made. The purpose of the recirc is to
review _the changes_. That's why the scope of the recirc is limited.
The ballot cover letter [IEEE 802.16-04/17] says "Based on the
changes to the draft or on the Disapprove comment and responses, you
may change your vote and/or submit additional comments."
In my opinion, it is the obligation of commentor to demonstrate that
the comment is within scope. Your comment does not so indicate. If
you believe that your comment is in scope, I recommend that revise
your comment to explain this, making specific reference to the number
of the applicable Sponsor Ballot comment (see IEEE 802.16-04/11r5)
that you think was erroneous. If you are unsure about whether such a
comment exists, you might wish to review the marked-up draft (file
P80216-REVd_D4delta.pdf), because that shows the changes under
review. That document, you will note, is the one that is formally
being reviewed in this recirc.
I believe that this is all very well explained in the section "Scope
of Recirculation and Conditions for Comment Acceptance" of the
"Comment Resolution Procedure for Sponsor Ballot Recirculation of
IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4"
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_18r1.pdf>.
>Your feedback is always appreciated.
My pleasure. I understand that you are new to the process.
Unfortunately, there are, apparently, many experienced participants
who fail to comprehend the meaning of a recirculation. My reply
comments identified some comments in which I was concerned about the
scope. I do not insist that each one is out of scope, but I felt some
concern and expected the commentor to bear the burden of
demonstrating otherwise. I suspect that there were plenty of other
out-of-scope comments that I failed to flag in my reply comments,
simply for lack of enough time to comprehensively review them all.
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Tassos
>
>
>====================
>Tassos Michail, PhD.
>Sr. Systems Architect
>Aperto Networks
>Ph: (408) 719-9977 x689
>Fax:(408) 719-9970
>www.apertonet.com
Regards,
Roger