| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
See my comments in-line. Thanks, IEEE 802.16 TGm Vice Chair From: Junghoon Jee
[mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR] Dear Phillip, Thank greatly for providing the quick feedback! Please find inline replies starting with JJ>. From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@HUAWEI.COM] Junghoon, Certainly Members should give every
consideration and attention to comments marked as ‘Part of Disapprove
Vote’ from Disapprove voters in the commentary database. There are a mere
22 comments marked as ‘Part of Disapprove Vote’, from only seven
Disapprove voters. And the majority of those comments are from only two or
three voters. I have little doubt that Members will give careful attention to
these comments. And, yes, each of the 22 comments (18
non-editorial, 4 editorial) marked as ‘Part of Disapprove Vote’
should be scrutinized by the Members to assure that the comments meet the
recirculation scope requirements. 16m leadership will also be looking at scope
for these comments. Some of the comments do not provide direction as to the
rationale for their scope in the recirculation. I would draw Members’
attention to comments D012, D013, D014, D020, D024, D025, D026, D027, D029,
D030. It may be that these comments meet one of the three criteria to be in
scope of the recirculation, but they don’t specifically identify which
criteria so they deserve evaluation. JJ> I’d
appreciate your clarification and pointing out the comments that members need
to pay attention. [[Phillip Barber]] You can find the comments that are
‘Part of a Disapprove Vote’ by Finding the comments marked with an
X in the ‘Dis’ box in the commentary database. The ‘Dis’
box is immediately to the right of the comment ‘Type’ listbox on
the Commentary form. Remember that even if a ‘Part of
Disapprove Vote’ comment is determined to be out-of-scope of the
recirculation the group may still choose to deal with the comment rather than
just resolving it as out-of-scope of the recirculation; the group is not
compelled to resolve the comment as out-of-scope. This can be useful when a
comment may be out-of-scope but the group agrees on the need for the comment
remedy anyway. JJ> Sure, we should consider sponsors’ inputs as best as we can rather than categorizing them
as out-of-scope. Still, in our haste to address these
important comments I would hate to see any lack of attention to the other 164
non-Editorial comments from Approve voters in the ballot. Almost certainly many
of these comments are sincere attempts to make last-minute repair to problem
areas in D10. We would do well to provide review and comment to get the best
possible remedies prepared prior to the meeting comment resolution. JJ> Definitely I agree with you! In
principle, our major goal in this sponsor ballot is to improve the quality of
the draft by the inputs from our sponsors. Not to mention the need to align ASN.1
code to the text, including proper ASN.1 code for proposed Control Msg Format
changes. JJ> Agreed, they are the important ones need
to be fixed in this round. Members have two weeks to prepare their
Reply Comments; ample time to do a thorough job. Thanks, IEEE 802.16 TGm Vice Chair Best Regards, Junghoon From: Junghoon Jee
[mailto:jhjee@etri.re.kr] Dear Phillip, I have a suggestion to proceed the “Call
for Reply Comments” step and the upcoming AFAIK, there’s condition for a
comment to be considered as a valid one not as an out-of-scope one in this
round because we already achieved more than 75% approval in the previous recirc
#3. Let me refer the relevant parts from the clause 5.4.3.3 Comments
in the ballot from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. “Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments
in subsequent ballots shall
be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard,
portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions
of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments
associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may
be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be
addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for
a future revision of the standard.” Therefore, I believe that we need to put high priority to
resolve the following in-scope comments. 1)
Bottom line is the comments from the Sponsor Ballot members who
disapproved in this recirc #4 and also comments from Sponsor Ballot members
which are related with the subject of current disapproval voters’
unresolved comments. 2)
Comments about the changed portions from D9 to D10. 3)
Comments about portions of the balloted proposed standard
affected by the changes from D9 to D10. Therefore, I have following suggestions to move forward more
productively. 1)
It would be great if IEEE 802.16m leadership can spend a time to
go over the submitted comments whether we could give high priority. 2)
Allocate as much time as possible to hear from Sponsor Ballot
members in the upcoming Best Regards, Junghoon From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@HUAWEI.COM] The 4th recirculation ballot of the IEEE
802.16m Sponsor Ballot has closed. See the below email from Roger Marks with
details on the ballot results. This note is a Call for Reply Comments, with a
deadline of Monday 10 January 2011 at 9:00 AM The Commentary file will open to the view in which
you can begin entering reply comments. Use the "Submit Reply
Comments" tab in the upper right corner to export your replies to a file
for uploading, per the embedded instructions. Reply comments, in
"cmtr" format, need to be uploaded to the “sb_16m” upload
directory <http://dot16.org/ul/ul.cgi?command=viewupload&database=sb_16m_db>.
The Ballot ID tag "sb_16m" is embedded in the Commentary database. Thanks, IEEE 802.16 TGm Vice Chair From: Roger B. Marks
[mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org] P802.16m/D10
was reviewed in IEEE-SA Sponsor Ballot Recirc #4, from 3-18 December. The
results are: |