Re: [STDS-802-16] +++IEEE 802.16 Letter Ballot #17 (on IEEE P802.16-2004Cor1/D1) is now open
All,
I have been recently asked a couple of questions related to the scope of
this Letter Ballot. As Roger announced, this "ballot concerns the
Maintenance Task Group's IEEE P802.16-2004Cor1/D1" Draft document. All
comments must reference to that document.
If you have found a new error or ambiguity that you think should be
corrected in the baseline document, and which is not covered in the Cor1/D1
draft, you can introduce a comment which discusses the issue. But be sure
that the page, line numbers reference the Cor1/D1 draft and that the
Suggested Remedy instructs the editor on what you think are the necessary
modifications needed in the Cor1/D1 document in order to fix the issue.
Here is an example:
+------------------------+ +------+ +-----+
+---------+
Type | Technical, Non-binding | Page | 136 | Line | 62 |
Section |11.13.12 |
+------------------------+ +------+ +-----+
+---------+
Comment
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------+
|In 802.16-2004, p. 706, 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 136, line 62, after section 11.13.12, insert the text:
|
|
|
| "11.13.18 ARQ TLVs for ARQ-enabled connections
|
|
|
| 11.13.18.8 ARQ_BLOCK_SIZE
|
|
|
| In 802.16-2004, p. 706, in the TLV table, change the text
from: |
|
|
| 1-2040 = Desired/Agreed size in bytes
|
|
|
| to
|
|
|
| 16-2040 = Desired/Agreed size in bytes"
|
|
|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------+
(This is an example I used when a very similar discussion came up during the
Call for Comments on the Working Document, borrowed from one of Ambroise
Popper's comments--thanks again, Ambroise). The Suggested Remedy is the
instruction you want the Corrigendum Editor to follow (if the comment is
accepted), to make sure the Cor1/D1 draft makes the proper correction to the
baseline document.
On a related issue, a number of late comments in 80216maint-05_001r3 were
rejected due to lack of time. Those commentators who still want to raise
those items, need to submit new comments because we are now reviewing the D1
draft. If the exact same comments, which reference the Working Document
(80216maint-04/10), are submitted, they will be rejected as out of scope of
the Letter Ballot. In this case, submitting new comments most likely means
just updating page/line numbers.
One last thing: Itzik has made sure that all references in the D1 draft to
the baseline document are to the official version, i.e. IEEE Std
802.16-2004. Comments will not be rejected if they are discussing the
P802.16-REVd/D5 draft, but it is highly preferred that you use 802.16-2004.
In any case, if you are referencing a baseline document in your comment,
please clarify which one (again look at my example above), so it is clear
when the comment is being resolved.
Thanks,
Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 3:42 PM
> To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
> Subject: +++IEEE 802.16 Letter Ballot #17 (on IEEE
> P802.16-2004Cor1/D1) is now open
>
> To: IEEE 802.16 Reflector
> bcc: IEEE 802.16 Working Group Members
> <http://ieee802.org/16/members.html>
>
> IEEE 802.16 Working Group Letter Ballot #17 is now open,
> through 13 March 2005 at 6 pm local time in Atlanta, GA, USA:
> <http://tinyurl.com/55bj5>
>
> The ballot concerns the Maintenance Task Group's IEEE
> P802.16-2004Cor1/D1 ("Draft Corrigendum to IEEE Standard for
> Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Part 16: Air Interface
> for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems"):
> <<http://ieee802.org/16/private/drafts/maint/P80216_Cor1_D1.zip>
>
> [Please see also the note "Release of IEEE P802.16-2004/Cor1/D1"
> <http://ieee802.org/16/arc/802-16list2/msg02545.html>.]
>
> The announcement document:
> Title: "IEEE 802.16 Working Group Letter Ballot #17: Announcement"
> Document Number: IEEE 802.16-05/007
> URL: <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_007.pdf>
>
> details the procedures. It also tells you how to participate
> and explains the Members' obligation to do so. "Membership
> shall be lost if two consecutive, or two of any three
> consecutive, Working Group letter ballots for which the
> member was eligible are not returned or are returned with an
> abstention other than for 'lack of technical expertise'."
> Those who lose membership on these groups will not hold
> membership status at Session #36. You can check your recent balloting
> history:
> <http://ieee802.org/16/le/le_sg/ballot15/report15.html>
> <http://ieee802.org/16/netman/ballot16/report16.html>.
>
> Don't forget the deadline of 13 March 2005, at 6 pm on the
> evening before Session #36. Allow time to read the draft
> carefully. As you read, please keep the Commentary database
> open so you can easily record corrections to any problems you see.
>
> Comments from non-members are also welcome.
>
> The ballot submission form is available at:
> http://ieee802.org/16/maint/ballot17/ballotform17.html
>
> Ballot submittals will be error-checked and acknowledged in
> real time. They can be confirmed with a web page that is
> updated in real time.
>
> Roger
>
> --
>
> Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:marks@nist.gov> +1 303 497 3037
> National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO,
> USA Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
> <http://WirelessMAN.org>
>