Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Gordon et al,
Yes, I think the Corrigenda process would definitely be cleaner and
could actually be faster, especially if you all know what you want to
do; and I get the impression that this latest comment round has at least
identified many of the holes in RevD, if not the solutions.
While I agree the fixes could be done in TGe, I think you could be
putting yourself at great risk from a schedule perspective. While we
all want TGe to get done ASAP and we are all working hard towards that
goal, I still feel we are only just now beginning to seriously address
many of the real issues associated with mobility. Mobility is not an
air interface, it is a NETWORK, and as we clearly identified at the last
meeting, many of the TGe issues fall over into the NetMAN arena, which
hasn't even started. How do we handle them and when?? What impact will
NetMAN have on TGe? As I said at the last meeting, I think our chances
of getting there with TGe have greatly improved, but there are still a
lot of pitfalls along the way and I, at least, have no intention of
letting an incomplete, non-implementable standard go forward. It
doesn't do anybody any good.
One of my other "issues" with doing RevD fixes in TGe is the same one
that has been expressed before by some others - What are you "selling"
for fixed: 802.16-2004 plus normative Annex "X" of 802.16e? If you
recall, the original concept was that RevD would be the "self-contained"
fixed Standard and 802.16e would be the mobile amendment - a very clean
distinction. That clean break now gets very blurry. Where and how do
the system profiles for fixed fit in and how do they get specified
across the two documents? It just strikes me as very messy.
If people feel that the latest comment round on RevD has identified all
the serious holes and that they can work out solutions quickly, I would
see a Corrigenda effort as almost an Ad-Hoc activity, if you write the
PAR tight enough. By the time the PAR gets approved, you could have the
document ready to go. We've effectively done that before.
Anyway, that's some of my thoughts. We have until July to think about
it.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Antonello [mailto:GAntonello@WI-LAN.com]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:32 PM
To: Kiernan, Brian G.; 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
Brian, although I am relatively new at this, I recall that during TGa
and TGc that changes to the base standards were sometimes made. Are you
saying that the the corrigenda process would be cleaner/better?
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Kiernan, Brian G. [mailto:Brian.Kiernan@InterDigital.com]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:30 PM
To: Gordon Antonello; 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
I would not automatically assume TGe is the best way to handle the
errata. Frankly, I think the Corrigenda approach makes more sense. It
keeps the fixed and mobile distinction very clean and may actually
happen faster if you all know and can agree as to exactly what fixes
need to be made and how.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Antonello [mailto:GAntonello@WI-LAN.COM]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:59 PM
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
Thanks to all on this one. There are ways to clean the ERRATA via the
TGe process.
Gordon