Re: [802.21] Unresolved Comments
Hi, Srini,
I agree, the explanation from Vivek makes a lot of sense and clarifies
the things a lot.
> What was confusing is ... "resolutions of these unresolved comments will
> -not- be included"
This only applies to D01.80.
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
> Srini
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:50 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.21] Unresolved Comments
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:50 AM
>>To: Gupta, Vivek G
>>Cc: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>Subject: Re: [802.21] Unresolved Comments
>>
>>One thing for sure is that the resolutions of these unresolved
>
> comments
>
>>will -not- be included in the current round of draft spec updating,
>>since the motion for issuing an updated draft spec (D02) is very
>>specific on only the accepted changes in
>>21-06-0647-10-0000_LB1_Master_File.USR.
>>
>
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> That is indeed correct.
> We shall resolve these comments in September meeting.
>
>
>>In other words, technically the resolutions of these comments will
>
> -not-
>
>>be included until the next round of draft spec updating after the
>>current one.
>>
>>So I think the best way to handle them is probably to ask people to
>>re-submit them against the soon-to-be-released D02, and re-submit them
>
>
>>during the re-circulation (another motion will be needed to authorize
>>the next round of draft spec updating, and I assume that will only
>>happen after the close of the re-circulation).
>
>
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> There is probably no need to resubmit any of these comments just as yet.
>
> The new version of draft that Qiaobing is editing based on all updates
> so far can be labeled version D01.80 (or something like that). This
> version of the draft is for reference only. No new comments can be
> submitted against this draft. Members can look at this draft and if
> there are any errors/omissions etc. in comment resolution from LB-1 or
> something not done to satisfaction then another version D01.90 could be
> produced prior to Sept meeting with appropriate minor fixes.
>
> We can then take up the existing unresolved LB-1 (in
> 21-06-0647-10-0000_LB1_Master_File.USR) comments (against old draft
> D1.0) as they are and resolve them in Sept meeting and eventually update
> D1.9 with all the resolutions and any other new contributions in Sept to
> draft version D2.0. These new contributions in Sept can address existing
> rejected or deferred comments or other identified issues in LB-1.
> Eventually draft D2.0 could go for recirculation after the Sept meeting
> and that would be an opportunity to file new set of comments.
>
> Best Regards
> -Vivek
>
>
>
>>Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The following (Technical Binding or Technical Non-binding) comments
>
> in
>
>>>Commentary database file 21-06-0647-10-0000_LB1_Master_File.USR have
>
>
>>>no "Decision of Group" marked against them. Some of these comments
>
> were
>
>>>Editorials which were later deemed Technical by some members while
>
> there
>
>>>are few others which we just missed during the Comment Resolution in
>
> May
>
>>>and July.
>>>
>>>We shall go through these comments in the September meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>Best Regards
>>>
>>>-Vivek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>51, 62, 66, 69, 71, 74,
>>>
>>>169, 177, 180, 182, 183,
>>>
>>>233, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 259, 260, 263, 282, 283, 284, 286,
>
> 288,
>
>>>296, 298, 299,
>>>
>>>300, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 318, 319, 322, 331, 351,
>>>
>>>486, 488,
>>>
>>>519, 528, 562, 575,
>>>
>>>679, 687, 690
>>>
>>>703
>>>
>
>