Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working Document from Main tenance Task Group
Roger,
Thanks for pointing to mistaken comments.
I believe that mostly it was a result of misunderstanding rules [at least it
is correct for my comments and I
apologize for that]. To my perception, more than 50% of commenters
misunderstood rules.
As we are under the pressure of 16e timetable [16e de facto is based on
802.16-2004 + Corrigenda] ,
would you consider to allow resubmitting wrongly marked comments with
changing page/line references?
I understand that such suggestion is unusual, but situation with mass
misunderstanding
also is not usual.
Thanks
Vladimir
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG]
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:09 PM
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working
> Document from Maintenance Task Group
>
>
> I've compiled the comments submitted regarding IEEE
> 802.16maint-04/10. I've posted this as IEEE 802.16maint-05/01:
> http://ieee802.org/16/maint/docs/80216maint-05_01.zip
>
> Some submitted comments are excluded from this database. I believe
> that the excluded comments are in these files:
>
> Maint_Comments_Dave_Pechner.USR
> Maint_Comments_Segal_Yossi.usr
> Maint_comments_Yanover_Vladimir.USR
> Maint_Comments_Yaniv_Ran.USR
> Maint_comments_Andrei_Enescu.USR
> Maint_comments_Jiho.USR
> Maint_comments_Yong_Chang.USR
> Maint_comments_Jung Je_Son.USR
> Maint_comments_Hur_Yerang.USR
> Maint_comments_Fong_Mo-Han.USR
> Maint_comments_Roland_Muenzner.USR
> Maint_Comments_Kitroser_Itzik.USR
> Maint_Comments_Cho_Jaehee.USR
> Maint_comments_GiulioCavalli.USR
> Maint_Comments_Duke_Dang.USR
> Maint_comments_Yigal_Eliaspur.USR
> Maintenance-comments-s35-Wang-Lei.USR
> Maint_Comments_Lomnitz_Yuval_80216maint_04_10.USR
> Maint_Comments_Lomnitz_Yuval_80216REVdD5.USR
> Maintenance_Joel_Demarty.USR
> Maintenance_Popper_Ambroise.USR
> 80216maint_comments_Castelow_David.USR
>
> Those comments were excluded because, in my assessment, they do NOT
> address IEEE 802.16maint-04/10, which is the document under review.
> The comments appear to address some different document. This is
> obvious because, in most cases, the comments refer to page numbers
> greater than 86, and 802.16maint-04/10 has only 86 pages. We can't
> let a single database include comments referring to more than one
> document, because the result would be really confusing.
>
> It's possible that I have made some mistakes in sorting out these
> issues. If so, please let me know. Please understand that the comment
> resolution process becomes very difficult when people ignore the Call
> for Comments.
>
> Personally, I would suggest rejecting all the comments that addressed
> the wrong document. However, perhaps the TG Chair would suggest
> another approach. For instance, we could compile the rejected
> comments into a separate database, presuming that most of these are
> referring to IEEE P802.16-REVd/D5.
>
> Reply comments will be due on 20 January AOE. Detailed instructions
> will follow.
>
> Roger
>
>
> >Ran,
> >
> >Since the existing comments and existing reply comments refer to
> >802.16REVd/D5, any new reply comments need to do the same,
> or people will
> >be thoroughly confused.
> >
> >In commenting on the Working Document, you need to use the page/line
> >numbers of the Working Document. If, in the comment text,
> you find that you
> >need to refer to a document, then you should tell people
> what document you
> >are referencing. Since the Working Document references IEEE Std
> >802.16-2004, it would be better reference that, rather than a draft.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Roger
> >---------------------
> >
> > > At 22:34 -0800 2004-12-27, Roger B. Marks wrote:
> > > Hi Roger,
> > >
> > > Should comments on the working document, as well as
> replies to the
> >existing
> > > comments, reference 802.16REVd/D5 (as was the case in
> previous rounds), or
> > > should they reference the published 802.16-2004 document?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Ran
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> > >> Sent: Tue 21 December 2004 22:58
> > >> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> > >> Subject: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working
> Document from
> > >> Maintenance Task Group
> > >>
> > >> At 22:34 -0800 2004-12-27, Roger B. Marks wrote:
> > >> At Session #34, the Maintenance Task Group agreed to
> create a working
> > >> document incorporating approved comments and to open a call for
> > >> comments on it.
> > >>
> > >> The working document, created by editor Itzik Kitroser,
> is now available
> >at:
> > >> http://ieee802.org/16/maint/docs/80216maint-04_10.zip
> > >>
> > >> This note opens a Call for Comments regarding the
> working document.
> > >> The deadline is Thursday 13 January 2005 AOE
> > >> <http://tinyurl.com/65vnt>.
> > >>
> > >> Preparing comments in Commentary format. Export them
> with a file name
> > >> of the form Maint_comments_Name.USR, where "Name" is your name.
> > >> Upload the exported file to <http://maint.wirelessman.org>.
> > >>
> > >> Roger
> > >>
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> >http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
> 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 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.
************************************************************************************