Re: [STDS-802-16] ***extension of contribution deadline for P802.16e/D5a BRC Recirc ulation***
All,
I noticed that there was a discrepancy in how folks were reserving
contribution numbers. Several of the initial uploads specified the
document number with two digits as a opposed to the three digits as per
Roger's instructions on the upload page. If we use two different number
formats, the automatic collision detection incorporated in the upload
cgi won't work. To avoid headaches in reconciling comments due to
duplicate contribution numbers, let's all be sure to use the three digit
format (e.g, "C80216e-04_NNNrsv.pdf") as per Roger's instructions.
BR
Mark Cudak
Roger B. Marks said the following on 1/8/2005 7:14 PM:
> Folks,
>
> Brian and I have received some requests for a deadline extension in
> the P802.16e/D5a BRC Recirculation. We are hesitant to offer an
> extension, because we don't want to further cut back the reply
> comment phase. We believe that a reply comment period is vital to
> successful comment resolution at Session #35.
>
> While we are not extending the deadline for comments, I am hereby
> announcing a one-day extension, until 11 January AOE, of
> contributions that accompany a comment.
>
> Here are the rules: If your comment references a contribution that
> won't be available at the comment deadline, refer to the contribution
> by number, including the specific revision number of the contribution
> to follow, and state in the comment that it will be uploaded by 11
> January AOE.
>
> For example, "Incorporate changes documented in IEEE C802.16e-05/XXr1
> (to be uploaded by 11 January AOE)".
>
> I will be compiling and posting the Commentary database of submitted
> comments as soon as I can following the 10 January AOE deadline.
> People will be able to begin reviewing this database on 11 January.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> >The P802.16e/D5a Ballot Resolution Committee Recirculation
> >Announcement is now available:
> > http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_79.pdf
> >
> >This is a review of the P802.16/D5 comment resolutions:
> > http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_69r4.zip
> >and the implementation of those resolutions in P802.16e/D5a:
> > http://ieee802.org/16/private/drafts/tge/P80216e_D5a.zip
> >
> >The deadline is 10 January AOE.
> >
> >Please study the announcement before submitting comments. If you
> >don't follow the process, don't expect to have your comments
> >considered. Take special notice of this part:
> >
> >>Specification of Objectionable Comment Resolutions
> >>
> >>Each comment must specifically reference a comment resolution that
> >>is found objectionable. In particular, each comment must begin with
> >>one of the following:
> >>
> >>* "I object to the resolution of Comment #x because..."
> >>* "I object to the implementation in the draft of Comment #x
> because..."
> >>
> >>where x is the number of one or more comments in IEEE 802.16-04/69r4.
> >>
> >>Comments that do not follow this format will not be considered, or
> >>will be considered as a low priority, depending on available time.
> >
> >Cheers!
> >
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >>Folks,
> >>
> >>The 802.16e recirculation is running late. I've been trying to
> >>reach Brian to work out revised schedule, but I haven't been able
> >>get him.
> >>
> >>I learned a couple of days ago that the editing work is running
> >>behind. We had planned to have D5a available for the Ballot
> >>Resolution Committee (BRC) recirc, to run from Dec 10-31. Ron is
> >>now estimating Dec 22 for the draft. The work is very extensive and
> >>difficult.
> >>
> >>In principle, we don't really need the draft to proceed with the
> >>BRC recirc. The process is really just a review of the comment
> >>resolutions; only those comment resolutions will be in scope.
> >>However, people usually find it very helpful to see the draft
> >>during their review. That's why we are waiting.
> >>
> >>I have put together a revised schedule:
> >> http://ieee802.org/16/tge/schedule.html
> >>
> >>It shows a BRC recirc from 23 December - 9 January. Given the
> >>importance of the reply comment period, I don't think we can extend
> >>this period any later.
> >>
> >>By the way, on the schedule, I've also sketched out a few
> >>alternative endings to the process, depending on how things may
> >>turn out.
> >>
> >>Roger
>