Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution voting
Hi Jose,
Actually I believe most of the comment is good and useful. The only part
that is confusing is the sentence about the zone.
(by the way, in that respect AMC is a permutation like any other, maybe
trivial, but still a we call the grouping of sub-carriers to sub-channels is
defined as a permutation, no matter how simple or complicated it is.).
The problem is that the process does not allow modification of the comment
text to correct the one confusing sentence, so I don't know how we can adopt
the useful part of the comment without the confusing sentence. Maybe someone
can advise?
Best Regards,
Yigal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Puthenkulam, Jose P
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:44 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution voting
Yigal,
My intention was to provide a distinct definition of 'zone' and it would
complement your definition of 'permutation zone' as special type of
zone.
One should not automatically assume that a 'zone' is always permutated,
which it is not in the AMC case. Hence my comment was intended to
clarify this.
In addition Subchannels, FUSC,PUSC and AMC are used in many places
without expanding on the terminology or abbreviations. Here again #159
adds text for this.
If you still believe, the comment is not helpful, please let me know.
BR,
jose
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Yigal Leiba
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:28 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution
voting
Hi Jose,
Maybe there is no conflict, but the use of the word 'zone' is confusing
- at
least it confused me as you can see.
Best Regards,
Yigal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Puthenkulam,
Jose P
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:22 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution
voting
Yigal,
In comments #160 and #161, you define a permutation zone. The definition
in #159 is generic for any 'zone'. So I do not see a conflict.
Please can you clarify.
BR,
jose
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Yigal Leiba
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 5:04 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution
voting
I would like to propose adding to that list comment #159.
Although I appreciate the good intention behind the comment of
clarifying
the different OFDMA permutations, the comment tries to modify text that
at
least in part is obsolete, loses some of the clarifications that where
made
by other comments (#160, #161), and wrongly defines the term 'zone'.
Yigal
-----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, May 06, 2004 12:48 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution voting
Personally, I recommend voting Reject on a number of comments that
are meaningless because they have been superceded. I don't think you
should waste time thinking about them:
Comment 171: This was superceded by 170; the lines can't be changed
because they were deleted by 170.
Comment 230: This was superceded by 229; the lines can't be changed
because they were deleted by 229.
Comment 52: The entire change was already made in Comment 53. Comment
52 won't change that either way.
Comment 169: This says to accept the changes in 168. Those changes
have already been accepted. Comment 169 won't change that either way.
Comment 232: This says to accept the changes in 202. Those changes
have already been accepted. Comment 232 won't change that either way.
All of these should have been withdrawn, in my opinion.
If I'm mistaken, please say so.
Roger