Re: [STDS-802-16] Call for Reply Comments: P802.16e/D11 Sponsor Ballot Recirc
Folks,
I'd like to make sure that, when Oct 6 rolls around a week from now, we have thoroughly researched and well-considered resolutions to each of the 41 comments.
Therefore, I am looking for volunteers willing to take responsibility to lead the development of a resolution of one or more comments. I hope to have one person on each comments. If we have multiple volunteers, I hope they will coordinate among themselves.
I'll start by taking two easy ones: 8001 and 8041.
Note that 8007 is a hard one. We're looking for lots of help there.
Please respond to the reflector, and I'll compile a list. I want people to know who has volunteered in case they want to participate.
Of course, everyone is invited to submit reply comments, but a coordinated response will be most effective.
Roger
>This note is a Call for Reply Comments, with a deadline of 6 Oct AOE, regarding the comments received in the P802.16e/D11 Sponsor Ballot Recirc:
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_072.zip
>
>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. If you wish to refer to a document, upload it to <http://tge.wirelessman.org>.
>
>To create and submit reply comments:
>
>(1) Obtain Commentary <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/Commentary>, if you don't have it.
>
>(2) Unzip the Comment Report to get a ".USR" file, which will open in Commentary.
>
>(3) Read the comments in Commentary. When you want to respond to a comment, check the "Marked" box at the top of that record. Then fill out the following fields:
>
>Recommendation by:
>Recommendation:
>Proposed Resolution:
>Reason for Recommendation:
>
>(4) When you are finished entering replies, look under Scripts and choose "Find Marked Records". This will find the records for which you checked the "Marked" box. Only the found records will be exported in Step (5). Don't include records on which you have no reply comment.
>
>(5) Under Scripts, choose "Export Clause Editor's Proposals". Choose the file type "FileMaker Pro Runtime Files". Enter a file name of the form "SB16e_reply_Name.USR", where "Name" is your name.
>
>(6) Upload the exported file to <http://ballot16e.wirelessman.org>. That site is continuously on-line. However, if you have trouble with that URL, try <http://dot16.org>.
>
>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>
>
>
>
>
>>The sixth recirc of the P802.16e Sponsor Ballot, involving P802.16e/D11, ran from 12-27 September.
>>
>>41 comments were received. One was an editorial Coordination comment. The others were all from P802.16e Technical Editor Ron Murias. The first one of these reads:
>>
>>"P802.16e/D11 is not fully consistent with P802.16-2004/Cor1/D5. The editorial instructions of both documents are in some cases contradictory and impossible to interpret, if both documents are given equal precedence. If the Cor1 draft is approved first, then the 16e draft, as the more recent one, would have clear precedence. In this case, the interpretation would be unambiguous. However, in this case, some editorial instructions P802.16e/D11 would negate those in P802.16-2004/Cor1/D5, and it is not clear whether this was intentional or accidental."
>>
>>The other 39 of Ron's comments specify the specific issues identified and, in many cases, recommended solutions. Many of the comments are "Technical, Binding." The 41 comments are available here:
>> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_072.zip
>>
>>I cannot reasonably inform RevCom that we will not recirculate these comments; I am sure that RevCom would reject this approach. Therefore, I have no choice but to request that RevCom remove P802.16e/D11 from the October 2005 RevCom Early Consideration agenda (for Standards Board approval in November).
>>
>>By virtue of a motion at Session #39, Brian Kiernan and I are authorized to resolve these comments. We will finalize and announce a process soon. Our goal, which I think is within reach, is to complete comment resolution in time to open one last recirc by October 17. This would allow for approval of the standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 7 December. This is about a month later than we could have expected under Early Consideration.
>>
>>This is a painful process for all of us, but I, for one, want to thank Ron for putting the effort into this. This issues he spotlighted are critical to the integrity of our standard. Let's get it right and get it over with. Free free to begin reviewing the comments.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>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>