Re: [STDS-802-16] Revised Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4
Jon,
You are right.
I'll post a new version once I'm sure I didn't mess up any other ones.
Roger
At 13:11 -0400 04/04/29, Jonathan Labs wrote:
>Roger,
>
>It looks like an error occured somewhere for the text for the proposed
>resolution to comment 020, 037, and 103. The text had included strikouts
>and underlines to show explicitly what changes were being recommended. For
>example, the proposed resolution for 037 was supposed to read:
>
>Change:
>
>An RNG-REQ shall be transmitted by the SS at initialization and periodically
>to determine network delay
>and to request power and/or downlink burst profile change. The format of the
>RNG-REQ message is shown
>in Table 19. Compressed RNG-REQ message shall be used in OFDM PHY in Initial
>Ranging Interval as
>specified in (Table 20). In other PHY modes the RNG-REQ message may be sent
>in Initial Ranging and data
>grant intervals.
>
>back to:
>
>An RNG-REQ shall be transmitted by the SS at initialization and periodically
>to determine network delay
>and to request power and/or downlink burst profile change. The format of the
>RNG-REQ message is shown
>in Table 19. The Compressed RNG-REQ message shall be used in OFDM PHY in
>Initial Ranging Interval as
>specified in (Table 20). In other PHY modes the RNG-REQ message may be sent
>in Initial Ranging and data
>grant intervals.
>
>When I open my copy of 16-REVd_Labs_Jon.USR, I still see the strikeouts and
>underlines.
>
>Jon
>
>-----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: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:54 AM
>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [STDS-802-16] Revised Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4
>
>
>The deadline for revised IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4 comments has passed.
>The data is available here:
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_20r3.zip
>
>The revised comments are in the fields "Recommendation", "Proposed
>Resolution", "Reason for Recommendation", and "Recommendation by".
>
>We also received a number of new and revised contributions. I've
>filed most of these on the TGd web page. I'll catch up with the last
>three soon.
>
>The Ballot Resolution Committee (BRC) will now begin considering each
>of these proposals. Each member may vote either "Accept" or "Reject"
>on each revised comment. See the procedure document for details.
>
>I will email the voting instructions to the BRC separately (I've had
>some technical difficulties, but I have a backup plan). In the
>meantime, I suggest that you carefully review the database and begin
>discussing the final comments with your colleagues as you deem
>appropriate.
>
>Roger
>
>
>>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>