Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution voting
Baraa,
That's fine as well.
My intention here is to try and eliminate ambiguities as possible, since
I want to see the process converge.
Thanks,
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Al Dabagh,
Baraa
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 10:41 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution
voting
Itzik,
Too many "mays" makes the standard less readable. If it is ok with
the group and DJ, I would suggest removing "that are carried in IP
datagrams." So the sentence would read:
"A connection that may be established during subscriber station (SS)
registration that is used to transport standards-based (SNMP, DHCP,
etc.) messages."
Baraa Al-Dabagh
BWD
Intel Corporation
baraa.al.dabagh@intel.com
Phone: 408-545-6078
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-
> 16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 2:13 AM
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution
voting
>
> After the ballot, I will do exactly as Roger suggested.
>
> Taking this opportunity, I have some problems with the accepted
comment
> #7.
> The comment changes the definition of the secondary management
> connection to read:
> "A connection that may be established during subscriber station (SS)
> registration that is used to transport standards-based (SNMP, DHCP,
> etc.) messages that are carried in IP datagrams."
>
> In the reply comments to this comment, there was a concern saying that
> the text is not necessary correct, since, for example, DHCP messages
are
> not carried over IP datagrams.
>
> Since D.J ignored the reply comments, his original suggestion
remained.
>
> I would like to do a minor change, for correctness purposes, of the
> definition to the following (changing 'are', to 'may be'):
> "A connection that may be established during subscriber station (SS)
> registration that is used to transport standards-based (SNMP, DHCP,
> etc.) messages that may be carried in IP datagrams."
>
> Since this is not pure editorial, I would like to ask if anyone has
any
> objections to this change.
>
> Regards,
> Itzik.
>
>
> -----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: Friday, May 07, 2004 8:30 AM
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: 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