| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Rodger and All, I just want to clarify a reply and fix a typo in
05_072r1. #8021: The reply by Harmonization group in 05_072r1 shows as 'Accepted',
but it should have been 'Accepted-modified'. Although there is a proposal in 'Proposed Resolution',
nothing might be seen there due to a blank in the 1st line. Please, close look at the 'Proposed Resolution'. #8017: There is a typo in the proposed remedy 2. A word in the else-if
condition shall be changed as, "else
if (STCTransmit_diversity == 0b11)" => " else if (STC == 0b11)"
In addition, there is a similar typo in the current
16e/D11. I’d like to suggest to add the following remedy to the reply comment
to #8017. 3. Delete ‘Transmit_diversity’ in the else-if condition (line 21, page 291, in table 279 of
16e/D11), as indicated: else if (STC Thank you. Jaeweon -----Original Message----- From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG] Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [STDS-802-16] Reply Comments: P802.16e/D11
Sponsor Ballot Recirc I have posted a new version of the database, including
the Reply Comments received:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/05/80216-05_072r1.zip Three late comments have also been added at the end. Per the decision at the Session #39 Closing Plenary,
the Working Group and Task Group Chairs will be preparing comment resolutions,
in conjunction with the Editor. Please feel free to let us know if you disagree
with any of the Reply Comments. 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/ >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 >> >>"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/ >>Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband
Wireless Access >>
<http://WirelessMAN.org> |