Hello Shkumbin,
Sorry for the confusion. I had mistyped
the comment numbers and had not specifically checked the database into which
you pulled the editorial comments. I was working from the database which
contained all of the comments and noticed that comments 63 and 66 are marked
editorial and comment 65 is marked technical. They are all the same comment and
I believe that they are technical, so none of them should be in the editorial
database.
Regards,
Jerry
From:
shkumbin.hamiti@nokia.com [mailto:shkumbin.hamiti@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008
10:58 AM
To: Sydir,
Jerry; STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] TGm SDD
Editorial comments
Dear Jerry,
Are you thinking of removing 63 and 66
(and not 65 as in your email)?
Regards,
Shkumbin
From: ext Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
Sent: 10 November, 2008 09:56
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] TGm SDD
Editorial comments
Hello Shkumbin,
I believe that comments 63 and 65 should
be excluded from the list. They are duplicates of comment 65 which is marked
technical. I believe that all three are technical comments.
Best Regards,
Jerry Sydir
From: Shkumbin Hamiti
[mailto:shkumbin.hamiti@NOKIA.COM]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008
4:34 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] TGm SDD
Editorial comments
Dear
colleagues,
The
SDD commentary DB in IEEE 802.16m-08/046 contains 250 editorial comments. As
usual, I plan to have a motion for block approval of those comments, sometimes
early in the session. As heads-up I have uploaded a draft of the motion in the
temp directory. You can find it here: http://dot16.org/ul//upload/temp_db/TGm_SDD_editorial_motion.ppt
Please
take a look at those comments and in case you disagree or have any other
comments please let me know.
Kind
regards,
Shkumbin
Hamiti
SDD
Editor
+358504837349