Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Roger,
I raised this issue at the plenary in Shenzhen, but your comment to
Vladimir brings it to mind once more.
While the .16e PAR provides the opportunity to make amendments, can you
please provide guidance as to how we can distinguish which parts of the
contents of the .16e document are corrections to .16-2004 and which are
the additional features required to implement .16e. Is the PAR really
sufficient to provide for errata? I quote from the current PAR
document:
Scope of Proposed Project:
This document provides enhancements to IEEE Std 802.16/802.16a to
support subscriber stations moving at vehicular speeds and thereby
specifies a system for combined fixed and mobile broadband wireless
access. Functions to support higher layer handoff between base stations
or sectors are specified. Operation is limited to licensed bands
suitable for mobility between 2 and 6 GHz. Fixed 802.16a subscriber
capabilities shall not be compromised (See Item #18).
A strict, narrow, interpretation of this would not seem to allow any
errata to be included.
Also the errata MUST be made explicit.
In the case of .16c, the profiles were not in conflict with any changes
to the base document.
In .16e, large changes are likely to be made, and we need to distinguish
the errata to .16-2004 from the other changes being made in .16e.
At the very least, I suggest, and shall raise a comment to this effect,
that a section of the .16e document be created in which the errata can
reside.
There is also the issue of timing. While the current plan shows .16e
completing around November, given the changes currently being
introduced, this seems optimistic. Some of the technical issues being
discussed for .16-2004 (aka .16-REVd/D5) need rapid agreement, in order
for ASICs to be constructed in a timely fashion.
However, this does not resolve marketing style issues relating to
compliance (to what: " .16-2004 plus the Errata Section of .16e" is a
bit of a mouthful).
The alternative of creating an Errata document would be preferable.
Comments please.
Regards
David Castelow
-----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: 03 June 2004 14:37
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Vladimir,
We are at the end of the line, and time is too short for reply comments.
People have had one chance after another to get their comments right. If
a comment isn't right, then I think you should vote to reject. If you
think there is a valid point here, then we should use the amendment
mechanism to address it. Fortunately, we have an active amendment
project - P802.16e - in which to include any additional changes.
Roger
At 15:25 +0300 04/06/03, Vladimir Yanover wrote:
>Roger,
>
>There are useful comments in database, in which remedy is incomplete or
>contains errors.
>If we reject them, the problem stays, if accept, the text becomes
>inconsistent.
>Is there a procedural way to modify suggested remedy?
>In D4 we had step of reply comments and it was very useful
>
>Thanks
>
>Vladimir
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:17 AM
>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation
>Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
>
>
>When I posted the P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation comments, I said that I
>would announce the on-line comment resolution process in a few days and
>told you to expect the decision-making process to be quick. I hope you
>have had time to read the comments.
>
>The process is described in IEEE 802.16-04/31
><http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_31.pdf>. Members of the IEEE
>802.16 Working Group <http://ieee802.org/16/members.html> are the
>members of the Ballot Resolution Committee and eligible to vote. They
>should read IEEE 802.16-04/31 for details. It explains the need to make
>a quick decision on these comments.
>
>The voting deadline is 5 June AOE.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>>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.
>***********************************************************************
>*************