| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Agree DJ. The bottom line for tonight
is: Amend the existing document, let’s
not create a new one from scratch as the PAR is not allowing so. Peretz From: Johnston, DJ
[mailto:dj.johnston@intel.com] Shouldn’t it either amend IEEE
802.16-2008, on the basis that that is what will be in place when the 16m is
done or simply IEEE 802.16 which is the generic name for the last revision with
all the outstanding amendments applied? Nothing will amend Rev2, because the
name Rev2 will become 802.16-2008 on approval, assuming it’s complete in
2008. DJ From: Feder, Peretz
(Peretz) [mailto:pfeder@ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM] From: Feder, Peretz
(Peretz) Not convinced Panyuh: See below. From: Panyuh Joo
[mailto:panyuh.joo@GMAIL.COM] Feder, The assumption is not likely right. Each standard project is identified as related tasks whether it is
revision or amendment or corrigenda or errata or new standard. That is the same reason whay 16j upload contributions into 16j, but not
into 16e/rev2/etc.. But when 802.16j is published, it too will
amend 802.16Rev2 like 802.16g just did.
They all became part of Rev2, so will
802.16j and according to my understanding of the 802.16m PAR, so should it. The 802.16m PAR says amendment all over
it. Amendment can’t be a new standard. Hope this could help your understanding. Need more convincing. PAR language is
king. panyuh |