Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working Document from Maintenance Task Group
Radu et al.,
I think an example is needed to clarify this confusion. Let me take one of
Ambroise comments which was rejected. His second comment in his file
Maintenance_Popper_Ambroise.USR is regarding ARQ block size. This is how we
would like to see that comment to have been submitted:
Starting page: #82, starting line: #3
Comment: In P802.16-REVd/D5, p. 712, the block size in ARQ is
programmable from 1 to 2040. Using a size of 1 would result in very poor
performance of ARQ, making it virtually useless. In 802.16e, the minimum
size has been set to 16. We suggest harmonizing with the same constraint in
802.16-2004.
Suggested Remedy:
On page 82, line 3, add the text:
"11.13.18 ARQ TLVs for ARQ-enabled connections
11.13.18.8 ARQ_BLOCK_SIZE
In P802.16-REVd/D5, on p. 712, line 20, Change the text to:
116-2040 = Desired/Agreed size in bytes"
This would be the instruction you want the Corrigenda editor to follow (if
the comment is accepted), to make sure the Corrigenda document makes the
proper correction to the baseline document.
I hope this helps to clarify things.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[ <mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Radu Selea
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 7:39 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working Document from
Maintenance Task Group
Roger,
I understand the procedural issue but it is a real need to clean the
baseline document first. As the corrigenda can be judged only relative
to the baseline document, I cannot see how we can decouple them except
on the editorial side.
We have to have in mind that all comments either to IEEE P802.16-REVd/D5
or to corrigenda have as effect, changes and additions into the
corrigenda.
Every technical comment makes sense only referencing both documents.
I suggest if possible, considering the comments and suggesting from now
on, some specific procedures that fit the situation.
On the excluded comments, the confusion is not as bad, as the section
numbers are the same.
One choice for the next call could be editing comments relative to
corrigenda text (section, page number). Comment justification can
contain a reference to the IEEE P802.16-REVd/D5 content.
Radu.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[ <mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:09 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>
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>
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>
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> 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>
http://maint.wirelessman.org>.
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> <http://mail2web.com/> http://mail2web.com/ .
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify Redline immediately
by email at postmaster@redlinecommunications.com.
Thank you.