| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I know this is an early draft of proposed
PAR language, but… A Scope statement is intended to say what
a Standard includes, not what may be considered in the development process. It
is not appropriate to say, ‘It proposes…’ and ‘PHY
modifications…can be considered.’ A Standard does not ‘propose’
anything’ A Standard ‘is’. It defines a specification of
features and functions. You either include, or you do not include. Consideration
is irrelevant. So you have to be a bit more critical in the PAR language prep
phase to determine EXACTLY what is in, what is within Scope AND WILL BE
INCLUDED IN THE COMPLETED STANDARD (though I would agree that it is up to the
Sponsor Ballot Members to determine if the necessary material is included, and
when the Standard is complete). If you are not sure, don’t include it. If
you feel confident you need the changes/enhancements, then include appropriate definitive
language in the Scope: If you are unsure, you can argue the point during
the Standard development process and if you cannot do without such
changes/enhancements then you process a PAR change to bring the required
material into Scope. Thanks, Chief Scientist Wireless Advanced Research and Standards Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. From: Ron Murias
[mailto:ron@MURIAS.CA] Re-sending with my own clean-up (I missed cleaning up a couple
more points in the previous email)... Again, my recommendations in green: On 2010-04-28, at 7:01 AM, Ron Murias wrote:
Hi Rakesh (and all), I think the Scope needs more clean-up, with some recommendations
included below in green. While I won't comment on your PHY sentence,
the wording is not consistent with what should be written in the Scope,
especially wording like "can be considered", so I think that if the
group agrees with the concept you are promoting, the sentence should be
re-written (in line with my recommended text in green). Thanks, Ron On 2010-04-28, at 3:31 AM, Rakesh Taori wrote:
Jose and all, Thank you Jose, Hangyo and Shilpa for preparing
the documents and organizing the discussions. We would like to share some remarks on the ===
Suggested Changes to the PAR language
===
This amendment provides
support for IEEE 802.16 Advanced Air Interface equipment. As
you can see, the key change that we are proposing is further refinement
of the PHY scope. I
am guessing that our changes, other than the PHY sentence, are likely to be
acceptable to most people. Thanks
and Kind Regards,
|