RE: [802.21] Deadline for comments/submissions for March 2006 Plenary
Ajay,
Indeed. Additionally, based on audio telecons we may have to propose
specific text changes to the draft either as a direct output from adhoc
or individually. So, I hope these comments can also brought in for the
same deadline.
Regards,
Srini
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:54 PM
>To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
>Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802.21] Deadline for comments/submissions for
>March 2006 Plenary
>
>Srini,
>
>This process is no different than the one which we had been
>following for the past few sessions. The only change is that
>this time we set the deadline for comments and replies three
>weeks before the f2f session (instead of 1 week), so that we
>get some more time to discuss the comments and build concensus.
>
>I would not call it an "internal ballot" since "ballot" has a
>certain connotation, which is not implied here. This is open
>to the whole .21 community and not just voting members.
>
>I would agree that typically the hope would be that with more
>time we would get more comments. I would also agree that it
>would be desirable to get all issues on the current state of
>the draft pointed out at any time. In that case, we could keep
>an open bin such as a "todo" list of issues and get to
>discussing it once we exhaust the whole list of active
>comments. Submissions that are not directly changing specific
>text in the current draft could still be submitted a week in
>advance (Feb 27, 2006).
>
>Let me know if this resolves your concerns.
>
>Regards,
>-ajay
>
>Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com wrote:
>
>>Hi Ajay,
>>I agree that the internal ballot process may allow for faster
>>resolution of comments. But, if the intention to resolve as many
>>comments and issues by the March meeting, it would be better
>to provide
>>another opportunity to submit them, regardless of how hard we try to
>>get all the comments in by Feb 10th. THis may serve better
>than putting
>>it off until the deadline for May meeting.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Srini
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>> From: ext Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:16 AM
>> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [802.21] Deadline for comments/submissions
>for March 2006
>>Plenary
>>
>>
>> Srini,
>>
>> At this time there is no other deadline being set for
>the comment
>>submission for the March Plenary other than the one mentioned
>(February
>>10, 2006).
>>
>> Let us send as many comments to this iteration and see
>if we can cover
>>all (ok, most!) the comments.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -ajay
>>
>> Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ajay,
>> I have a few questions on the deadlines.
>>
>> 1. Do we have another deadline for
>contributions for March plenary?
>> 2. Can we still submit additional comments for
>that date? If so, is
>>that
>> a different file or the same one used during
>internal ballot?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Srini
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Ajay Rajkumar
>>[mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:20 PM
>> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [802.21] Deadline for
>>comments/submissions for March
>> 2006 Plenary
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> As discussed in the just concluded
>Interim session at Hawaii,
>> to give more time for comment
>resolution, the deadline for
>> comment submission would be earlier
>than we have typically had.
>>
>> Following are the deadlines for the March 2006
>>Plenary:
>>
>> New draft P802-21-D00-05.pdf made
>available at the latest by
>> January 30, 2006.
>>
>> Comments/submissions deadline: February
>10, 2006 midnight EST
>>
>> Merged comments file uploaded: on February 11,
>>2006
>>
>> Reply comments due: February 17, 2006
>>
>> We will have the following two Comment
>Resolution adhocs
>> before the March 2006 Plenary session:
>>
>> - February 21, 2006; 9-11 am EST
>> - February 28, 2006; 9-11 am EST
>>
>> IMPORTANT: Please note that this
>process would be more
>> effective if "reply comments" are
>submitted well in time.
>>
>>
>> Most of the following procedures for
>submitting comments have been
>> discussed in previous f2f meetings as
>well as have been
>> followed for the
>> previous comment resolutions. Just to recap:
>>
>> 1. If you are submitting comments for
>the first time then get the
>> "commentary" software from the following
>>directory:
>> http://www.ieee802.org/21/Commentary
>> Else you should have the software
>already downloaded.
>>
>> 2. Submit comments on the current draft
>version P802-21-D00-05.pdf
>>
>> The following fields need to be filled
>for every comment submitted:
>> - Document under Review
>> - Comment Submitted by (First Name, Last Name)
>> - Comment Date
>> - Comment
>> - Starting Page#
>> - Starting Line#
>> - Fig/Table# (if applicable)
>> - Section#
>> - Suggested Remedy
>>
>> 3. All contributions should be in the
>form of a FileMaker file with
>> extension ".USR" with the file name format as
>> D00-05_Lastname_Firstname.USR.
>>
>> 4. Once the comments deadline has
>passed, a consolidated comment
>>file
>> would be uploaded. Read the comments
>using the commentary software
>>and
>> if you want to respond to any comment,
>check the "Marked" box
>> at the top
>> of that record. Then fill out the following
>>fields:
>>
>> - Proposed Resolution
>> - Recommendation
>> - Recommendation by
>> - Reason for Recommendation
>>
>> 5. When you are finished entering
>replies, look under Scripts
>> and choose
>> "Find Marked Records". This will find
>the records for which you
>>checked
>> the "Marked" box.
>>
>> 6. Under Scripts, choose "Export Clause
>Editor's Proposals". This
>>will
>> only export the marked records that one
>wanted to reply to. Choose
>>the
>> file type "FileMaker Pro Runtime
>Files". Enter a file name of the
>>form
>> "D00-05_reply_Lastname_Firstname.USR".
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> -ajay
>>
>> Ajay Rajkumar
>> Chair, IEEE 802.21 WG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>