Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution voting
It's too late to start revising the comment. As everyone know, we had
plenty of opportunity for that earlier.
The editor can still make editorial changes. If a definition is
confusing, it can probably be straightened out. The editor could run
it by the reflector first to see if there were any objections.
Roger
At 01:52 +0200 04/05/07, Yigal Leiba wrote:
>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