Re: [STDS-802-16] comment editors for P802.16e/D11 Sponsor Ballot Recirc comments
Roger and all,
I have done on 8028 and 8040 and uploaded proposals at 'temp' directory.
Thanks,
Jungnam Yun
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:19 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] comment editors for P802.16e/D11 Sponsor Ballot
Recirc comments
So that you will know where we most need help, I've posted a list of the
volunteers I've gotten so far as comment editors:
http://ieee802.org/16/tge/commenteditors.html
As you can see, we still need more help. I'll update the list when I get
more volunteers.
Roger
>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>