Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [RPRWG] Opening of Recirculation Ballot on Draft 2.7 of P802.17



Robert and others,
 
It is not uncommon to find recirculation periods ending in the middle of a
plenary or
interim meeting. For instance, I was recently in an 802.11g meeting where
the last
recirc ended on the last day before the closing plenary.
 
Obviously, if there was any way to have a comment resolution session end
prior to
the plenary then we'd have taken that route. Unfortunately this time around
that would
have meant effectively postponing the possible start of Sponsor Ballot for
an entire
plenary cycle. Given the choice between such a delay and having it end in
the middle
of the plenary, we took the latter.
 
Note also that the next recirc will have to be clean if we are to go into
Sponsor after
this plenary. If we do indeed get so many technical comments that we are
unable to
resolve them all in a day, and, further, address them without making changes
to the
draft, then we will have to make other plans.
 
Thanks,
 
- Tom A.
Chief Editor, 802.17
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Lemon
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:07 PM
To: Castellano, Robert; stds-802-17
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Opening of Recirculation Ballot on Draft 2.7 of P802.17


Robert,
 
It had never been possible to get it done before the plenary begins due to
the requirement to allow at least 15 days for comments on a recirculation
ballot. Tom mentioned this when we accepted the recirculation schedule at
the July plenary.
 
The comments were supposed to be ready by Tuesday morning, so we'd have the
rest of the week. Unfortunately, we had a bit of a problem getting one of
the sections, which delayed the draft by one day. Hopefully, we'll have very
few comments (or maybe even none?). Also, if someone really feels a need to
submit a comment on this round, instead of waiting for the first sponsor
round, they will hopefully submit well ahead of the deadline so that any
comments received can start being discussed before the Wednesday deadline.
 
jl
-----Original Message-----
From: Castellano, Robert [mailto:RCastellano@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 12:32 PM
To: Mike Takefman (E-mail); stds-802-17
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Opening of Recirculation Ballot on Draft 2.7 of P802.17



Mike, 

I'm surprised to see that comment period closes on Wednesday morning of the
plenary and 
not prior to the plenary.  That does not allow any time during the meeting
for comment resolution. 

        thanks, 

        robert 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Mike Takefman [ mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx> ] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:41 AM 
> To: stds-802-17 
> Subject: [RPRWG] Opening of Recirculation Ballot on Draft 2.7 
> of P802.17 
> 
> 
> Announcement of opening of 802.17 WG Recirculation Ballot and 
> Comment Period 
> -------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -------------- 
> 
> Dear IEEE 802.17 Working Group Member: 
> 
> This e-mail is to advise you of the opening of the IEEE 802.17 
> Working Group Recirculation Ballot for IEEE P802.17 (Resilient 
> Packet Ring), Draft 2.7, otherwise known as: 
> 
> Information Technology - Telecommunications and information 
> exchange between systems - Local & Metropolitan Area Networks - 
> Specific requirements - Resilient Packet Ring Access Method and 
> Physical Layer Specifications 
> 
> The comment period opens on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 at 9.00 
> AM PDT and 
> closes on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 at 10:00 AM PDT. 
> 
> THIS IS AN 802.17 BALLOT. All valid ballots (votes on the document) 
> that are submitted along with comments will be counted 
> towards approval 
> or disapproval of the draft. A valid ballot is one that is cast by a 
> voting member of the 802.17 group that also voted (approve, disapprove 
> or abstain) during the D2.3 ballot. 
> 
> All properly submitted comments will be resolved during the November 
> 2003 Plenary meeting in Albuquerque. Note that you are only 
> required to 
> submit a ballot if you wish to change your existing vote. If 
> you do not 
> submit a ballot, your last recorded vote will be carried 
> forward unchanged. 
> 
> Further, if you had voted Disapprove on D2.3, D2.4, D2.5 or D2.6 
> along with applicable Technically Binding comments, and all of 
> these comments have been resolved to your satisfaction, then you 
> are requested to submit new Technically Binding comments if you wish 
> to maintain your vote as Disapprove. If you wish to change your 
> vote from Disapprove to Approve in spite of any outstanding 
> Technically Binding comments, please submit a new ballot as well. 
> 
> A copy of this draft can be found on our password-protected website: 
> 
> http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d2_7/
<http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d2_7/>  
> 
> The draft is posted in Adobe "pdf" document format and can be 
> viewed online, or downloaded and printed. You will need a copy of 
> Adobe's Acrobat Reader (4.0 or higher) to view or print the 
> draft. This 
> software is available for free downloading from Adobe at: 
>       http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html
<http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html> . 
> 
> The draft prints out as 754 paper pages. It is copyrighted by the IEEE 
> and is for your review and balloting purposes only. It should not be 
> copied or otherwise distributed. 
> 
> As this is a RECIRCULATION BALLOT, only changed sections of the draft 
> (i.e., those with changebars along the left hand side) are 
> now open for 
> comments. Please refrain from commenting against draft text that does 
> not have a changebar next to it. 
> 
> The ballot/comment executable with instructions is available at: 
> 
> http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d2_7/P802_17D2_7
<http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d2_7/P802_17D2_7>  
> _CRD_Win.zip 
> or 
> http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d2_7/P802_17D2_7
<http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d2_7/P802_17D2_7>  
> _CRD_Mac.sit 
> 
> The comment executable is designed for systems capable of running 
> Windows or Macintosh based programs. Please read the comment 
> instructions carefully. 
> 
> The set of Technically Binding comments that were rejected at the 
> October 2003 Interim meeting is supplied in the file: 
> http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d2_7/rejectedCom
<http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d2_7/rejectedCom>  
mentaryData.USR 
> 
> You may review the rejected comments by simply double-clicking on the 
> above file (after first downloading the ballot/comment 
> executable). You 
> may, if you wish, change your vote from Approve to Disapprove, or 
> maintain your Disapprove vote, on the basis that one or more of these 
> Technically Binding comments should not have been rejected. In this 
> case, please submit a new ballot with accompanying Technically Binding 
> comments indicating the reason for your Disapprove vote. 
> 
> Please submit ballots and comments (using the output of your comment 
> executable) electronically to Tom Alexander at: 
>       tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> If you should have any questions, problems or comments please contact: 
>       Mike Takefman 
>       Chair, IEEE 802.17 Working Group 
>       Office: 613-254-3399 Fax: 613-254-3778 
>       tak@xxxxxxxxx 
> 
>       Tom Alexander 
>       Chief Editor, IEEE 802.17 Working Group 
>       Cell: 503-803-3534 Fax: 503-632-7621 
>       tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> 
> NOTE: 
> 
> According to the RPR Working Group ballot process, official 
> ballots will 
> only be accepted from voting members of the 802.17 Working Group. The 
> draft is also, however, being circulated to those who have been 
> participating in the standardization process but are not 
> members of the 
> Working Group, in order to provide a wide review of the 
> document and to 
> solicit comments. 
> 
> You should also be aware that Technical-Binding (TB) comments are not 
> required to be tracked amongst non-Working Group members. If a TB is 
> entered by a person who is not a Working Group member, and this person 
> is not at attendance and readily available at the interim meeting to 
> review the Working Group's response, we will not obligate the 
> editors or 
> staff of 802.17 to track down the commenter and obtain the sign-off. 
> 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> 
> Mike Takefman 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Takefman              tak@xxxxxxxxx 
> Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems 
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG 
> 3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8 
> voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991 
> 

winmail.dat