Re: [STDS-802-16] P802.16/Cor2/D1 Draft; Call for Comments
Joe's editor's notes are now posted:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_066r4.zip
Roger
On Jan 12, 2007, at 02:39 AM, Itzik Kitroser wrote:
> 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