Re: [802.21] Unresolved Comments
Hi Vivek,
I have one question. Please see below.
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:50:25PM -0700, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
> > -----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.
Discussing rejected and deferred LB-1 comments in Sept meeting makes
sense, but shouldn't rejected ones be processed differently from the
deferred ones? I mean, only resolution for deferred LB-1 comments
should be reflected to D2.0 and actual decision for acceptance of
resolution for rejected LB-1 comments should be part of LB-2 comment
resolution.
Yoshihiro Ohba
> 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
> > >
>