RE: [802.21] Unresolved Comments
Hello Yoshi,
> 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.
>
You are right. However if there are comments that were rejected
primarily because of lack of contribution and if members come up with
appropriate contributions during September meeting, we may be able to
address these as well. Most of these comments have already been
identified as "issues" which have been assigned to different members.
The intent is to improve the draft as much as we can while addressing
the submitted comments in LB-1 with appropriate contributions.
Best Regards
-Vivek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@tari.toshiba.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:11 PM
> To: Gupta, Vivek G
> Cc: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: 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
> > > >
> >