| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
The purpose of this note is to describe the process for the resolution of comments received in the P802.16e/D10 Sponsor Ballot Recirculation, and the process for submittal to RevCom. Given the comments and votes received, as noted in the previous message (see below), it is unrealistic to proceed to RevCom without additional recirculation. Therefore, I will be asking RevCom to remove consideration of P802.16e/10 from the Sept 21 RevCom agenda. The following RevCom meeting is in December. However, it may be possible to gain approval from RevCom in the "Early Consideration" process, in which RevCom considers approval recommendations during a conference call. I don't yet know the exact date for the conference call, but it would normally be scheduled around the end of October. I have discussed this issue with the RevCom Administrator, who has offered to allow our draft into Early Consideration as long as the final recirc closes by September 27. Since the recirc needs to run for 15 days, this means that it must open by September 12. That happens to be the first day of Session #39. At the Session #38 Closing Plenary, the WG passed a motion "to authorize the working group and Task Group e chairs to resolve the comments from the 802.16e Sponsor Ballot Confirmation Recirculation." With that in mind, I would like to present the plan agreed to by the WG and TGe Chairs. (1) Of the 147 comments, we have found 104 to be acceptable. The Editor agrees and is comfortable with the direct and immediate implementation of the resulting changes to the draft. We have marked these 104 comments as "Accepted" in the updated version of the comment database: http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_064r1.zip (2) The Editor will begin implementation of the 104 accepted comments. (3) Of the remaining 43 comments, many would be accepted except for the fact that the proposed remedy is not sufficiently specific. Many comments are basically editorial but rather complex or tricky. (4) We will be announcing a Call for Reply Comments requesting input on how the remaining 43 comments should be resolved. The deadline will be Sept 7. You are encouraged to begin your review now; you need not wait until the Call for Reply Comments is available. (5) We hope for a strong response to the Call for Reply Comments. As usual, we emphasize the importance of proposing SPECIFIC TEXT applicable directly as the WORKING GROUP RESPONSE to the comments; we are asking for your proposal, not for your opinion. Remember that comment resolutions leading to changes to the draft require SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS TO THE EDITOR. We encourage you to work with other Working Group Members to ensure broad review of your proposals. You are welcome to use the "temp" upload facility and the reflector to circulate draft proposals. For complicated editing problems, you are encouraged to submit FrameMaker documents for rapid incorporation into the draft. (6) Based on the Reply Comments, the WG and TGe Chairs may decide on additional comment resolutions, or may decide to tentatively propose additional comment resolutions. (7) Resolution of any remaining issues will be considered when TGe meets on September 12 at Session #39. TGe will endeavor to specifically resolve all outstanding comments on that day. The meeting schedule will be arranged to provide maximum comment resolution time. For example, we will strive to keep the WG Opening Plenary duration to a minimum. (8) The September 12 comment resolutions will be immediately referred to the Editor for implementation in D11. (9) D11 will then be submitted for recirculation. The Taipei location will provide a 12-hour lead time over New Jersey, where the September 12 deadline applies. I look forward to you participation in this process. P.S. I will be sending a similar note regarding the Corridendum. We will also attempt to open that recirc on Sept 12. Roger >The P802.16e/D10 Sponsor Ballot closed on 26 August. > >By my approximate count, the result was 133 Approve, 8 Disapprove (94.3% Approval). The remaining Disapprove voters are: > >David Castelow: had indicated an intent to switch to Approve, but did not vote >Remi Chayer: did not vote >James Gilb: submitted 31 "Technical, Binding" comments >Brian Kiernan: did not vote >Jonathan Labs: submitted 1 "Technical, Binding" comment >Greg Phillips: did not vote >Dorothy Stanley: did not vote >Victor Stolpman: had indicated an intent to switch to Abstain, but did not vote > >In addition, 115 non-binding comments (Editorial and Technical) were received. The database has 147 comments: > http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_064.zip > >I'll be discussing the comment resolution process with the Task Group Chair, Brian Kiernan. > >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>