Re: [STDS-802-16] P802.16/Cor2/D1 Draft; Call for Comments
Jon,
Is there a database with editor's comments\notes integrated, such that we
can have some general reference of comments the editor found to be
problematic?
Best Regards,
Itzik
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Labs [mailto:JLabs@WAVESAT.COM]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:47 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] P802.16/Cor2/D1 Draft; Call for Comments
All,
There have been a number of questions regarding this call for comments
on the P802.16/Cor2/D1 draft that has just been released. This email
intends to clarify the views of both Roger and myself on the Cor2 draft
and give the reasoning behind this call.
In our view, we are not ready to start thinking in terms of Sponsor
Ballot. First of all, according to the proposal of Marks, Kiernan, and
Labs (see http://dot16.org/CSUpload//upload/WG_db/C80216-07_001.pdf),
there may be no Sponsor Ballot. Secondly, we think it is far from clear
that the document is ready for Sponsor Ballot anyway. If there is to be
a Sponsor Ballot, it would have to run after the March meeting, where we
could get EC approval.
So then the question arises as to whether it's best to submit comments
for discussion next week, or wait for the recirc. In our view, now is
better, because comments can then be reviewed in a meeting instead of in
some electronic procedure. Clearly, there is no time for a full review
of the draft, but there is no harm in getting started with comments that
people are aware of.
We would recommend that priority be placed on reviewing:
(1) The implementation of the prior change requests. This was probably
not clear-cut; Joe could have made some errors, or misinterpreted
ambiguous instructions. Also, Joe has mentioned that he found cases of
conflict between CRs.
(2) The prior CRs themselves; perhaps, on reflection, those prior
decisions were less than optimum.
In our view, these are the most time-critical issues.
We would suggest that you place a relatively lower priority on new
issues, though we would not propose to rule them out of scope.
Roger and Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: January 10, 2007 5:19 PM
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [STDS-802-16] P802.16/Cor2/D1 Draft; Call for Comments
>
> The first Cor2 draft (P802.16/Cor2/D1) is now available using the WG
> member password:
> http://ieee802.org/16/pubs/80216_Cor2.html
>
> Thanks to Editor Joe Schumacher, who put a lot of time into this
> draft. It weighs in at 484 pages.
>
> This document comes too late for a formal WG letter ballot recirc,
> which would require a minimum of 15 days. However, since we have
> significant time scheduled for the Maintenance Task Group to meet
> during Session #47, we are providing the opportunity to review the
> draft and submit comments for consideration next week.
>
> Here are the comment rules:
>
> *Only Commentary 2 format <http://dot16.org/Commentary> is acceptable
>
> *In Commentary, identify the ballot as "LB23" and the Document under
> Review as "P802.16/Cor2/D1".
>
> *Export your comments as a ".cmtb" file.
>
> *Observe the deadline of Monday 15 January 2007 at 11 pm London time:
> <http://tinyurl.com/yabyvu>.
>
> *Upload comments to the <http://lb23.wirelessman.org>.
> [Note: We will transition to the on-site upload server over the
> weekend, but I'll try to remember to keep the above URL active for
> those who are not on-site.]
>
> Roger