Re: [STDS-802-16] Results of IEEE P802.16-REVd Recirc #2
After quickly browsing the comments I am left with the impression that a number of the comments labelled as editorial in fact are technical. E.g. 512, 531, 547 are in my clearly technical in nature.
BR Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Vladimir
> Yanover
> Sent: 31 May, 2004 13:09
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Results of IEEE P802.16-REVd Recirc #2
>
>
> Roger and All,
>
> I found a breach in REVd that makes impossible effective
> invocation of DES
> encryption.
> I didn't submit it to Sponsor Ballot to avoid delay, but I
> see that anyway
> there are lot of other comments.
> The question is whether I can submit the comment directly to
> BRC [as a late
> one].
> I believe that fixing the problem is for benefit of everybody.
>
> Thanks
>
> Vladimir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG]
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 2:21 PM
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [STDS-802-16] Results of IEEE P802.16-REVd Recirc #2
>
>
> The P802.16-REVd Recirc #2 balloting period has closed.
>
> The good news is that we are down to one Disapprove voter (Nico van
> Waes). He submitted one Technical Binding comment, which was a
> reiteration of a previous comment.
>
> The bad news is that we received a total of 171 comments.
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_30.zip
>
> The following show the members of the Sponsor Ballot Group who
> submitted comments, along with the number of comments:
>
> Tal Kaitz 2
> Itzik Kitroser 11
> Yigal Leiba 44
> Cor van de Water 3
> Nico van Waes 1
>
> I received additional comments from other individuals who do not
> belong to the Sponsor Ballot Group:
>
> Raja Banerjea 3
> Changhoi Koo 68
> Lalit Kotecha 14
> Wonil Roh 25
>
>
> We will now move on to an on-line comment resolution process in which
> the members of the Ballot Resolution Committee will be the Members of
> the IEEE 802.16 Working Group. I will provide details in a few days.
> Expect the decision-making process to be quick.
>
> For those of you who are wondering where this leaves us: we have met
> the RevCom conditions for D5 to be approved as an IEEE standard on 24
> June. If we reject all of these comments, no further recirculation
> will be necessary. However, we also have the option to accept
> comments, produce draft D6, open a third recirculation, and remove D5
> from the June RevCom agenda.
>
> Roger
>
>
> This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
>
> **************************************************************
> **************
> ********
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
> vandals & computer
> viruses.
> **************************************************************
> **************
> ********
> This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
> **************************************************************
> **********************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
> vandals & computer viruses.
> **************************************************************
> **********************
>