Re: [STDS-802-16] [802.16m-Cleanup Initiative] Improving the Implementability of the IEEE P802.16m/D6 Draft
Dear IEEE 802.16 Working Group Members,
As you know, I initiated an effort to clean up the draft standard from loose descriptions and subjective language on July 22nd based on an undertaking in the last working group plenary. Unfortunately, only one person provided input before the deadline and until now, I did not receive any other inputs! I have uploaded the input from Vladimir Yanover to the working group upload repository under "temp". http://dot16.org/ul//upload/temp_db/comments_SB_Vladimir.xls
Given the disappointing response to this potentially useful initiative, I will not continue this activity and encourage the membership to review the draft specification (IEEE P802.16m/D7) and provide their comments directly through Sponsor Ballot comment process that is in place.
Thanks and Regards
-Sassan Ahmadi
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ahmadi, Sassan [mailto:sassan.ahmadi@INTEL.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:33 PM
>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [STDS-802-16] [802.16m-Cleanup Initiative] Improving the Implementability
>of the IEEE P802.16m/D6 Draft
>Importance: High
>
>Dear IEEE 802.16 Working Group Members,
>
>If you recall, in the closing plenary of the IEEE 802.16 working group on July 15,
>2010, I raised two issues and was tasked to follow up and resolve those issues as
>much as possible before the next meeting. The issues that I raised were as follows:
>
>1- Since July 2009 and when the LB process started, some members have pointed
>out issues with the drafts and their comments were rejected or withdrawn due to lack
>of proposed solution. While the membership in many occasions acknowledged that
>the points were valid and the issues existed; however, no attempt was made to fix
>those issues. I do not believe that this is only the responsibility of the commenter to
>find a solution and the group must try to fix those issues.
>
>2- There are many instances in the P802.16m/D6 draft where the language is
>subjective and unclear and inappropriate for a standard text; e.g., something "can"
>or "could" be done, but it is not clear how. In order to facilitate and streamline
>implementation of the standard, the draft must be cleared from all unclear and
>ambiguous terms and text.
>
>As agreed in the closing plenary, I would like to start a short-term initiative to resolve
>the above issues. In the first step, I would like to strongly encourage the
>membership to send me any comment that was submitted between July 2009 and
>July 2010, which was rejected due to lack of solution and the comment has not been
>resolved in subsequent revisions of the draft. Please only send to me the
>comments related to issues that the group has acknowledged as an issue and do
>avoid sending other rejected comments.
>
>I also would strongly encourage the members to send me a list of what they believe
>is an unclear or ambiguous text or fuzzy language in P802.16m/D6 draft.
>
>Please do use the excel sheet C80216m-10_0950.xls uploaded at TGm upload
>facility and kindly follow the proposed format so that I can compile and distribute
>the results as fast as I can and before the deadline for the SB comments.
>
>The deadline for submission of the above items to me (using the uploaded excel
>sheet C80216m-10_0950.xls) is July 30, 2010.
>
>Please use "[802.16m-Cleanup Initiative]" in the title of your e-mails to me
>(sassan.ahmadi@intel.com) and please do avoid e-mail threads.
>
>Thanks in advance for your consideration and cooperation!
>
>Regards
>
>-Sassan Ahmadi
>
>