Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working Document from Maintenance Task Group

John, Roger,

I have noticed that all of my comments were excluded from the new database, even though I counted at least three comments with direct reference to the working document.

I don't know what was the criteria, but would like them to be inserted and discussed without any resubmission and/or "late" tagging.

Thanks,

Itzik.

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Jonathan Labs

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 7:58 PM

To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working Document from Maintenance Task Group

Dear Ran,

Thanks for pointing this out. I see now where the confusion is arising and I'll take the blame for that.

However, in order to not generate further confustion and to keep the load off Itzik, I would still like to stick with my previous direction: I ask that "the commentators who produced these files to resubmit their comments, provided they correct the comments so that they are in reference to the working document, 802.16maint-04/10 [as per my example]. Otherwise I am going to have to reject them. The deadline to correct these comments is January 20th, AOE. Note also that these comments, once corrected, will have to go into the database marked as 'late', which will mean that we will review them if there is sufficient time."

As shown in my example, I don't think it requires much extra work on the commentors to modify their comments.

Jon

-----Original Message-----

From: Ran Yaniv [mailto:ran.yaniv@alvarion.com]

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 9:39 AM

To: 'Jonathan Labs'; STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working Document from Maintenance Task Group

 

Dear Jon,

I think that people understood your response to Roland's question to mean that comments on additional correction can be submitted as part of the call for Comments. I am referring to the following excerpt from that response:

"A primary intent of the Call for Comments on the Working Document is to see that the resolved comments from the last meeting were implemented correctly in the working document....

...

I will not reject comments on new corrections in the call for comments on the working document. However, the priority will be given at the next meeting to first resolve the Reply Comments to 80216maint-04_09.USR, then the comments on the working document specifically to implementation of the resolved comments, and lastly new comments for additional corrections."

I think it would be best to do just that - include the comments that reference the base document, and consider them after we are done with comments that address 802.16maint-04/10.

Thank you,

Ran

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jonathan Labs [mailto:jlabs@WAVESAT.COM]

Sent: Mon 17 January 2005 16:13

To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Comments on Working Document from Maintenance Task Group

 

All--

I reviewed all the commentary files in the Maintenance Upload Directory, and I agree with Roger's decision to exclude the comments in the files he listed with the exception of Maint_Comments_Dave_Pechner.USR.

The document under review was 802.16maint-04/10, and even if you want to introduce new corrections to the baseline document (whether you use the

P802.16-REVd/D5 draft or IEEE std 802.16-2004), your comments, and particularly the suggested remedies, must provide direction and instruction to the editor as to what needs to be added/changed to the working document.

What I will allow is for the commentators who produced these files to resubmit their comments, provided they correct the comments so that they are in reference to the working document, 802.16maint-04/10. Otherwise I am going to have to reject them. The deadline to correct these comments is January 20th, AOE. Note also that these comments, once corrected, will have to go into the database marked as "late", which will mean that we will review them if there is sufficient time.

Again I appreciate the intent to clean up the errors and ambiguities in the baseline document, but we must move forward in developing the standard. We have started a working document, which will later become a draft standard.

When new corrections are to be introduced, they now have to be in reference to the document under review. Hopefully, we can avoid this problem when we are in the Working Group Letter Ballot.

As for 80216maint-05/01, I ask Roger to include David Pechner's comments, and announce a Call for Reply Comments.

Jon

P.S. I apologize for the slow response to this issue. I have been on the road for the weekend, and I will also be for most of the next 24 hours as I am heading to China this morning. So my responses will still be delayed for another day.

-----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: 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

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.

****************************************************************************

********