Re: [STDS-802-16] Revised Comments for IEEE P802.16-REVd/D4
Is 20r4 OK?
>Hi Roger,
>
>It seems that something has happened in the comments gathering process.
>The revised comments lack the original formatting (like strikeots,
>underlines), and also some of the text is gone.
>
>That makes some of the revised comments unreadable and there are quite few.
>
>See for example #131, #110.
>
>Regards,
>Radu
>
>-----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 1:29 PM
>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: 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>
>
>
>IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
>individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may
>contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
>disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is
>not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
>delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified
>that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>communication in error, please notify Redline immediately by email
>at postmaster@redlinecommunications.com.
>
>Thank you.