[STDS-802-16] P802.16-2004/Cor1/D4 Sponsor Ballot: comment resolution and RevCom plan
The purpose of this note is to describe the process for the resolution of comments received in the P802.16-2004/Cor1/D4 Sponsor Ballot, and the process for submittal to RevCom.
It may be possible to gain RevCom's recommendation of this Corrigendum in the "Early Consideration" process. The recirculation would need to begin on September 12.
(1) We will be announcing a Call for Reply Comments requesting input on how the 52 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. The comment database is here:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_065.zip
(2) 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.
(3) Based on the Reply Comments, the Maintenance TG Chair and Editor will draft proposed resolutions. For the comments that appear to be controversial, they will contact the interested individuals seeking a consensus.
(4) A database showing the proposed resolutions will be posted by Saturday, 10 Sept.
(5) Resolution of any remaining issues will be considered when the TG meets on September 12 at Session #39. Meetings will be arranged to ensure that Corrigendum and TGe comment resolution is coordinated.
(6) The September 12 comment resolutions will be immediately referred to the Editor for implementation in D5.
(7) D5 will then be submitted for recirculation in time to meet the September 12 deadline in New Jersey.
Roger
>
>The P802.16-2004/Cor1/D4 Sponsor Ballot closed on 26 August.
>
>By my approximate count, the result was 141 Approve, 20 Disapprove (87.6% Approval). The remaining Disapprove voters are:
>
>Rajesh Bhalla: did not vote
>James Carlo: did not vote*
>David Castelow: submitted 2 Binding comments
>Mark Cudak: did not vote*
>Mo-Han Fong: submitted 2 Binding comments
>Pieter-Paul Giesberts: submitted 4 Binding comments
>John Humbert: did not vote
>David James: submitted 1 Binding comment
>Panyuh Joo: did not vote*
>Ivy Kelly: did not vote
>Lalit Kotecha: submitted 1 Binding comment
>Mark Lipford: did not vote
>Serge Manning: did not vote
>Chris Seagren: did not vote
>Jung Je Son: did not vote*
>Wen Tong: did not vote
>Mattias Wennstrom: did not vote*
>Peiying Zhu: did not vote
>Richard van Leeuwen: did not vote*
>Ilan Zohar: did not vote*
>
>*had indicated an intent to vote Approve, but did not vote
>
>In addition, 42 non-binding comments (Editorial and Technical) were received. The database has 52 comments:
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_065.zip
>
>I'll be discussing the comment resolution process with the Task Group Chair, Jon Labs.
>
>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>