Re: [STDS-802-16] A critical clarification is needed in section 8.3.5.1
Dear Mr Wang,
If it is the case, hopefully, please just withdraw it.
Thanks and regards
Panyuh Joo
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 9:48 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] A critical clarification is needed in section 8.3.5.1
You have got to be kidding me. This is well beyond too late!
We are killing ourselves trying to get this out, and you are just piling on.
We cannot get the document out with this type of exceptionally late
commenting!
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Huawei
+1 972-365-6314 direct (US)
+1 925-396-0269 fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "jing wang" <jwang@ZTESANDIEGO.COM>
To: <STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] A critical clarification is needed in section
8.3.5.1
> Hello members;
>
> I have also uploaded the revised comment
> "16eD11_Jing_Wang_late_comments01.USR" to the upload directory,
> http://dot16.org/CSUpload/CSUpload.cgi?command=viewupload&database=ballot16e
> _db.
> Thanks.
>
> Jing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jing wang [mailto:jwang@ztesandiego.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:53 PM
> To: 'Roger B. Marks'; 'brian.kiernan@interdigital.com'
> Cc: 'STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
> Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] A critical clarification is needed in section
> 8.3.5.1
>
> Hello Roger;
>
> Thank you very much for your careful reviewing. We have fixed the
> problems you identified in the revised attachment. Please review it again
> and incorporate it to the new draft.
>
> BR,
> Jing
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:03 PM
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] A critical clarification is needed in section
> 8.3.5.1
>
> Jing,
>
> We are well past the time to be submitting comments.
>
> In an emergency, we'll consider one, but this one is unacceptable:
>
> *Your text message refers to Table 225 on page 262, but there is no
> table on page 262 and not Table 225 anywhere in the draft.
>
> *Your Commentary file says the change is on page 262 line 42, but in
> a different table (Table 255). Again, none of this makes a shred of
> sense.
>
> *Your Commentary comment refers to "Table 225 starting on page 264
> lines 42". That page/line points to Table 225b, not 225. But then you
> talk about the Base Station_ID, which is at Line 35, not 42. And you
> talk about changing the Notes field, which does not exist.
>
> I conclude that you have not constructed your comment carefully. No
> one has the time to try to decipher it or correct it.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> At 11:38 -0700 2005-10-13, jing wang wrote:
>>Hello;
>>
>>It is necessary for the 16e standard to clarify and indicate the
>>times when the Mobile Station can get a BSID and when it can use the
>>BSID for DLFP checking. According to current standard, this may
>>prevent a MS from performing network entry. For instance, when MS
>>travel to cells covered by other BSs with different Base_Station_IDs.
>>
>>Inserting the following sentence at the end of the Notes field of
>>the Base Station_ID of Table 225 on page 262 line 42 of 802.16e/D11
>>and the new text will read as the following:
>>
>>"4 LSBs of BS ID. Prior to completion of network entry, the SS shall
>>ignore this field and decode all bursts specified by the DLFP. Upon
>>completion of network entry, the SS shall validate these bits with
>>those of the BS on which it is registered. The burst specified by
>>the DFLP shall not be decoded if these bits do not match those of
>>the BS on which it is registered."
>>
>>Please review and comment on it and we hope to this clarification be
>>adapted to the 802.16e new draft. I also attached the Commentary
>>database file for easy editorial reference.
>>
>>BR,
>>Jing
>