From:
owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of Sean Cai
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:17 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] release
of P802.16-2004/Cor1/D3
Itzik,
There are two main
reasons to introduce the text changes in C802.16maint-05/102r5 (Comment#107).
Firstly, in the first PUSC DL zone the DL_PermBase is set to ¡°0¡± for
renumbering in item (2), and at the same time, DL_PermBase is set to ¡°IDcell¡±
for permutation equation in item (4). What is the value of DL_PermBase in the
first PUSC zone? Secondly, there is no such parameter as DL_PermBase in the
first place until a zone switch by STC_DL_Zone_IE(). DL_PermBase is a parameter
of STC_DL_Zone_IE(). Before that, what is DL_PermBase in the first DL
zone? With the text changes of
C802.16maint-05/102r5, the DL_PermBase conditions are rightfully removed from
the first PUSC zone, no more ambiguity in interpretation.
What is more important,
the procedure of IEEE WG should be strictly enforced. IEEE
C802.16maint-05/102r5 was well debated in both 16e/16maint joint session and
16maint session alone. You should have been aware of the debates and the
revision changes because of that. The comment# 107 was finally voted and
accepted as modified. Editor is a tough job. I do respect your opinion, and you
had your chances to voice it at the debates. But you should not have the right
as an editor to choose not to incorporate the whole text changes as part of the
solution in C802.16maint-05/102r5. You should have at least consulted the
originators of the contribution for clarification if you need. I believe the
text changes suggested in C802.16maint-05/102r5 should have been incorporated
into Cor1/D3.
Regards,
Sean Cai
ZTE San Diego, Inc.
10105
Pacific Heights Blvd., Suite 250
San
Diego, CA 92121
Tel: 858-554-0387 x212
Fax: 858-554-0894
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of Jungnam Yun
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 11:23 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] release
of P802.16-2004/Cor1/D3
Hi,
In the first PUSC zone and PUSC zone with ¡®Use all SC
indicator=0¡¯, DL_PermBase shall be set to ¡®0¡¯ for Renumbering Sequence and also
DL_PermBase shall be set to ¡°preamble IDcell¡± or ¡°DL_PermBase from STC Zone IE¡±
for Inner Permutation (eq. 111) in the first PUSC zone and PUSC zone with ¡®Use
all SC indicator=0¡¯, respectively. This is the current form of standard. For one parameter, we have to have two different values at the same time in certain
zones.
Comment#107 was discussed long enough and the corresponding contribution
IEEE C802.16maint-05/102r5 had been revised 5 times and successfully cleared
all the ambiguity mentioned above.
I believe comment#107 should be incorporated into the draft without further.
Thanks,
Jungnam
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:42 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] release
of P802.16-2004/Cor1/D3
When
implementing the comment, I found out that the resolution was already
incorporated in the draft but in a different way, which I found to be cleaner.
Sometimes
during the process, we accept several comment that change the same paragraph
and therefore creates ambiguities (and even in some cases in the past
contradict each other). I think that my job as a technical editor is to try to
solve such problems in a way that the meaning of the comment is retained.
If you
read the current text, you will find out that the indention of the comment is
clear from the text.
For this
specific case, here is what was proposed, and what is currently in the text:
In item
(2), the intention of the comment was to differentiate between the first
DL_Zone and the rest, and to do this by changing the formula. In the final text
in the current draft says:
"In the first PUSC zone of the downlink (first
downlink zone) the default used DL_PermBase is 0. When the 'Use all SC
indicator=0' in the STC_DL_Zone_IE(), DL_PermBase is replaced with 0. For All
other cases DL_PermBase parameter in the STC_DL_Zone_IE() shall be
used.."
This exactly expresses the comment but
without changing the formula to two different cases but defining how to set the
DL_PermBase for the first DL zone (by setting it to zero is we get the first
part of the formula and for the rest we get the other part). I think that this
is much cleaner, express the intention of the comment and thus reaching the
goal.
The same this applies also to equation
(111) without the need to change the formula.
I agree that my work is to implement the
comments, but in this case, I found myself changing things to express exactly
what we already changed in the corrigendum and thought that this is not
logical, from pure editorial reasons.
I don't make any technical decisions, but
still see my work to have a clean document (again from editorial perspective)
and not rewriting same section again and again leaving the same output.
With respect,
Itzik.
From:
owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of Jungnam Yun
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:35 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] release
of P802.16-2004/Cor1/D3
When
I opened Cor1_D3, I found one of
accepted
comments that has not been applied in the
Draft. Since this kind of thing happened many times
before, I simply thought that the original
commenter
might
need to make another comment to appeal this
editor's mistake. But then, I opened the commentary files, 80216-05_21r2 and
80216-05_21r3 - 21r2 was released during the
closing plenary session and 21r3 was released yesterday along with the Draft
Cor1_D3.
For comment # 107, accepted
text changes have not been applied and there is an explanation in
80216-05_21r3.
In 80216-05_21r2,
IEEE
C802.16maint-05/102r5
Vote to call the
questoin:
In favor:
7
Against:
0
Vote to accept the
comment as modified
In favor:
5
Against:
0
Passes
And
In 80216-05_21r3,
Editor's Note
Did not make any
changes in items (2)
and (4) in section
8.4.6.1.2.1.1 since previous changes,
acheived the same target in a cleaner way.
Also, for the
change in equation (111), the text in
the description of DL_PermBase explicitly says that the parameter is set to
IDCell in the first DL_Zone, so there is no need to extend the formula to state
this again.
I was surprised by
"editor's Note" in 80216-05_21r3.
I believe that the editor
doesn't have the right to overturn group's decision. Once any
type of group decision is made during the session, accepted changes should be
incorporated in the draft and any concern on the change should be
presented
by comments in next session. If the editor could overturn groups decision as
above, all the discussion during the
session can be meaningless.
The chair or editor of
maintenance task group may need to explain
above
note.
Thanks,
Jungnam Yun
-----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,
May 22, 2005 12:32 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] release of P802.16-2004/Cor1/D3
The new draft IEEE
P802.16-2004/Cor1/D3 is now available:
<http://ieee802.org/16/private/drafts/maint/P80216_Cor1_D3.zip>
A markup version is also
available:
<ttp://ieee802.org/16/private/drafts/maint/P80216_Cor1_D3delta.zip>
Both require the 802.16 user
name and password. For more information
on password-protected
access, see:
http://ieee802.org/16/password.html
I'll ask IEEE to put the
240-page D3 up for sale, in place of D2.
It should be in the catalog
in a few days
<http://www.ili-info.com/ieee802drafts>.
Thanks again to Chief Technical
Editor Itzik Kitroser.
Itzik's Commentary database,
including editor's notes, is posted:
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_021r3.zip>
Itzik appreciated the
assistance of Marcos Vasconcellos, a colleague
of Jon Labs.
Working Group Recirc Ballot
#17b, with this draft under review, will follow.
Cheers,
Roger
--
Dr. Roger B. Marks
<mailto:marks@nist.gov> +1 303 497
7837
National Institute
of Standards
and Technology/Boulder,
CO,
USA
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working
Group on Broadband Wireless Access
<http://WirelessMAN.org>