Dear 802.16 Participants,
Per the IEEE 802.16 Working Group Maintenance Process, this message is a "Call for Change Requests" regarding IEEE Std 802.16. IEEE 802.16 is composed of IEEE Std 802.16-2009 as amended, consecutively, by 802.16j, 802.16h, and 802.16m).
The comment deadline is 10 May 2011 AOE. A
Reply Comment period will follow. Comments will be addressed at IEEE 802.16
Session #73 of 16-19 May.
Please note the following points:
(a) Per the Maintenance Process, the scope of the process is targeted at "corrections and clarifications to the published IEEE 802.16 standards, limited to errors, ambiguities, errata, and interpretations, including omissions that prevent interoperability." However, it is likely that the WG will be authorized at Session #73 to conduct maintenance projects on IEEE Std 802.16. In that case, the scope of the comments to be considered will be based on the scope of the authorized projects, per the PARs.
(b) Comments must be submitted in Commentary format, with supporting contributions as necessary.
(c) When preparing the Commentary comments, please ensure that you refer to the appropriate volume, page, line, and subclause. Consider that a particular subclause may have been amended in a later amendment. Please refer to the most recent volume (i.e., base or amendment) that affected the subclause of interest, referring to that volume as the "Document under Review" and referring to the page, line, and subclause in that volume.
Accordingly, choose a Commentary "Ballot ID" to match the volume on which you are targeting your comments, as follows:
IEEE Std 802.16-2009: Ballot ID = "cr73-2009"
IEEE Std 802.16j: Ballot ID = "cr73-j"
IEEE Std 802.16h: Ballot ID = "cr73-h"
IEEE Std 802.16m: Ballot ID = "cr73-m"
If you have comments on multiple volumes, please submit a separate Commentary file for each.
Regards,
Dear 802.16 Participants,
I have received some indications of interest in the 802.16 maintenance process, and some confusion about how it works, and how it will work in the particular case of newly-initated maintenance activity in the Working Group. This announcement serves to clarify.
(1) At Session #72, the 802.16 WG developed two draft PARs:
* IEEE 802.16-11/0010: Draft PAR for the Revision of IEEE Std 802.16
* IEEE 802.16-11/0011: Draft PAR for IEEE P802.16M
The first PAR would revise IEEE 802.16 (as it now stands, following the amendment of 802.16-2009 by 802.16j, 802.16h, and 802.16m). However, that PAR specifies that the WirelessMAN-Advanced air interface would be removed from IEEE Std 802.16. The WirelessMAN-Advanced air interface would be developed into a standalone IEEE Std 802.16M using the second PAR.
More information regarding the two PARs, and development timeline information, is available in contribution IEEE C802.16-11/0001:
(2) As I previously reported, the 802 EC agreed to forward those two PARs to NesCom.
subject to the discretion of NesCom and the IEEE-SA Standards Board regarding the project numbering. (Some EC members objected to the project number "802.16M".)
(3) The two PARs are scheduled for the approval agenda at the NesCom meeting of 6 May. If recommended by NesCom, the two PARs would then proceed to a ballot of the IEEE-SA Standards Board (SASB), which could fully approve the PARs and authorize the work. The current NesCom plan is for the authorization to become effective on 16 May, which is the first day of Session #73. Therefore, it is my expectation that work on the two PARs will take place at Session #73.
(4) Regardless of PAR status, the IEEE 802.16 Working Group Maintenance Process:
has been in place for many years. It applies to the current circumstances. Under that process, I will soon issue a "Call for Change Requests" regarding IEEE Std 802.16. This will be an opportunity to submit maintenance requests of the type to be considered in the new projects.
(5) In addition, the Maintenance Task Group will welcome contributions at Session #73 regarding issues concerning the development of the two new projects. For example, the TG needs to develop project work plans. It should plan how it will efficiently progress its work during the period in which no base drafts under the projects are yet available. [Note that I expect such base drafts to be developed by a professional editor from the published standards.]
Roger