RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Ballot: Forward IEEE 802.15.1 to Sponsor Ballot (fwd)
Ian,
Thanks for this information. So if I understand what you said, the second
NO voter should also be changing his vote to yes, once you can get in touch
with him. Also, the editorial issues are being taken care of and will not
appear in the document that goes to sponsor ballot.
I am particularly concerned that the seemingly biggest editorial issue
involves the use of the normative word "shall". I would really feel much
more comfortable with this, if the WG were to review this particular set of
changes before sending it to the sponsor ballot. There might be some
disagreement on just what is normative language (shall) and what is a
situation that can not be avoided (must).
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Gifford, Ian C. [mailto:giffordi@world.std.com]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 9:30 AM
To: bob@informed-technology.com
Cc: j.carlo@ieee.org; Bob Heile
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Ballot: Forward IEEE 802.15.1 to Sponsor
Ballot (fwd)
Hi Bob,
(I just realized all four of us are Consultants)
Thanks for reviewing the Comment Workbook. In regards to your questions I
offer the following for your review.
Note: If more questions arise please reference the Comment # to help speed
the response.
BO>I'm confused. I looked over the unresolved negative comments workbook
and see a number of editorial comments and two voters with the same
technical comment. The technical comments are listed as "closed". Does
this mean that the voters have agreed to the indicated resolution?
I assume you are referring to Worksheet "LB10 Comments, as of
3May01" Comment #5 & #6; correct? The answer to your question is Unknown
& Yes. Specifically:
Comment #5 - James Gilb, Unknown - he has been busy with IEEE Draft
P802.15.3/D0.4.0 and we have not connected.
ACTION: IanG to contact JamesG to verify receipt of Decline Letter and his
responses to the Ballot Review Committee resolutions.
Comment #6 - John Barr, Yes - he said he agreed with the resolution. Here
is his resubmitted APPROVING vote and general comments:
<snip>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 10:58:19 -0500
From: Barr John-ARES35X <John.Barr@motorola.com>
To: 'Bob Heile' <bob_heile@yahoo.com>, Barr John-ARES35X
<John.Barr@motorola.com>
Cc: "'giffordi@world.std.com'" <giffordi@world.std.com>,
"'jcarlo@ti.com'" <jcarlo@ti.com>,
"'tom.siep@ieee.org'" <tom.siep@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: LB10-Barr-NO
Based on the Letter Ballot #10 Comment Resolution, I would like to change
my vote from NO to YES with editorial comments based on the acceptance of
most of by objections and the status regarding the other comments. Several
of my NO issues will still be contained in the draft as it goes forward,
and the editorial comments will be addressed during the process of
creating the final copy.
I want to thank the 802.15.1 BRC for making the changes I suggested in
order to improve the readability and understanding of the draft.
Regards, John
</snip>
The 802.15 WG Ballot Review Committee coded Comment #5 & #6 as
REJECTED/CLOSED (RC) based on our ongoing discussion w/ JamesG & JohnB in
the past on this same subject as well the recent JohnB Disapproval to
Approval discussion (see above). You are right that the individual
comment coding needs to reflect the post resolution disposition by the
voter...we probably should have used a "?" in Comment #5 vs. a
"C". However, the bottom line on LB10 Comment #5 & #6 is the suggested
remedy "Move the four document references to the bibliography." will not
happen. The latest status for the four (4) docs is:
1. Bluetooth Assigned Numbers
<http://www.bluetooth.org/Bluetooth_11_Assigned_Numbers.pdf
2. Bluetooth PICS Proforma <This is our normative Annex A; the BSIG
reference has been deleted as an IEEE Reference
3. Bluetooth Qualification PRD <We agreed and the BSIG reference has been
deleted as an IEEE Reference
4. Bluetooth CVSD encoded test signal
<http://www.bluetooth.com/software/bin/BluetoothSpecFiles_new_tar.gz
and it is our belief that this comment resolution will be also acceptable
to James Gilb.
BO>I question why there are so many editorial issues still open. If they
are editorial, they won't change the meaning of the document. In
particular, the use of "must" in so many places does not seem to meet the
IEEE style guide.
In terms of LB10 Comment #9 the Ballot Review Committee ACCEPTED/OPEN
(AO) the comment because there are 262 occurrences of "must" or "MUST" in
the Bluetooth derivative source. Per our standard operating procedure we
will enter this IEEE Comment into the Bluetooth SIG Errata DB and we are
also verifying with the Bluetooth SIG Program Management if each of these
occurrences should be defined as "shall" or are they truly "...describing
unavoidable situations." The bottom line or why "...so many editorial
issues still open..." is we are trying to create a readable errata
submission for 262 occurrences of must in a 1500 page Spec. that cross
references to a 1159 page Std. We should be done by this Friday, 11May01.
BO>Why were the editorial issues not addressed and closed?
In general we agree but specifically which comment are you referring to?
FWIW if you have further questions feel free to call me directly and/or
any of the other members of the 802.15 WG Ballot Review Committee:
Dr. Chatschik Bisdikian, 802.15.1 Editor
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
30 Saw Mill River Road, M/S 3S-B34
Hawthorne, NY 10532, USA
tel#: +1 914 784 7439
fax#: +1 914 784 6225
e-mail: bisdik@us.ibm.com
Mr. Michael Camp, 802.15.1 Editor
Efficient Networks, Inc
4849 Alpha Rd Dallas, TX 75244 USA
TEL: (972) 759-2693
FAX: (972) 991-3887
E-M: mcamp@efficient.com
Mr. David Cypher, 802.15.1 Editor
NIST
M/S 8920
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8920, USA
TEL: +1 301 975 4855
FAX: +1 301 590 0932
david.cypher@nist.gov
Mr. Thomas M. Siep, Editor-in-Chief
TMS Consultants
2406 Denmark Drive
Garland, TX 75040
TEL: +1 469 766 8680
E-M: tom.siep@ieee.org
and me
Mr. Ian Gifford
23 Kelshill Road
Chelmsford, MA 01863, USA
TEL +1 978 251 3451
FAX +1 978 251 1437
MOB +1 978 815 8182
E-M giffordi@ieee.org
-Ian
--
Ian Gifford
giffordi@world.std.com
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jim Carlo wrote:
> Your response is needed.Alternatively, you might meet with Bob next week
to
> resolve his issues.
>
> Jim Carlo (j.carlo@ieee.org) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
> TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@informed-technology.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 5:16 PM
> To: jcarlo@ti.com; 'IEEE802'
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Ballot: Forward IEEE 802.15.1 to Sponsor
> Ballot
>
>
> I'm confused. I looked over the unresolved negative comments workbook and
> see a number of editorial comments and two voters with the same technical
> comment. The technical comments are listed as "closed". Does this mean
> that the voters have agreed to the indicated resolution?
>
> I question why there are so many editorial issues still open. If they are
> editorial, they won't change the meaning of the document. In particular,
> the use of "must" in so many places does not seem to meet the IEEE style
> guide. Why were the editorial issues not addressed and closed?
>
> -Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On
> Behalf Of Jim Carlo
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 10:25 AM
> To: IEEE802
> Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC Ballot: Forward IEEE 802.15.1 to Sponsor
> Ballot
>
>
>
> RESEND TO CLARIFY WHAT ACTION WE ARE TAKING. SORRY FOR DUPLICATION. I HAVE
> ALSO ADDED POINTERS TO DRAFTS, REMAINING COMMENTS, BALLOT RESOLUTION PER
VIC
> HAYES REQUEST.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/8May2001
> Issue Date: 8May2001 Closing Date: 19May2001
> Moved By: Bob Heile Seconded By: Stuart Kerry
> Move: Approve Forwarding to Sponsor Ballot: 802.15.1 (Draft Standard for
> Part 15.1: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
> specifications for Wireless Personal Area Networks(TM))
>
> Notes:
>
> 1) During the Recirculation Ballot, one additional No voter made eight
> comments, these comments were resolved without Technical Changes to the
> draft through discussions with the WG Ballot Resolution Group, and the No
> voter has changed his vote to an approve. The original NO voter continued
to
> vote NO with additional NO comments. Because of the additional No vote
> received (even though resolved), a new SEC motion is required for approval
> to move to Sponsor Ballot.
>
> 2) During the IEEE 802 Plenary HH SEC Meeting on 15Mar01 the following
> motion was approved:
> "Move that the ExCom forward IEEE Draft 802.15.1/D1.0 to Sponsor ballot,
> based on a successful completion of a WG re-circulation ballot.
Conditional
> approval to expire at the beginning of the Portland Plenary Meeting"
>
> 3) The final ballot count is:
> 74 Working Group Voting Members
> 56 Voting Approve
> 1 Voting Do Not Approve (Disapprove comments circulated during last
> recirculation ballot)
> 1 Abstain
>
> 4) The Draft can be found here:
> http://ieee802.org/15/private/Draft/
> 99000D10P802-15-1__Draft_Standard.pdf
> Note: The username/password for the WG Web Site is: [deleted]
>
> II. The unresolved negative comment Workbook can be found here:
> http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/01117r12P802-15_WG-LB8-Comment-Form.xls
>
> III. The letters & reports on resolution can be found here:
> http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/Gilb-LB10-Decline-Letter.pdf
> LB8-Reply-Comments_4May01.PDF
> LB10-Comments_4May01.PDF
> or all via:
> http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/LB10.html
>
>
> Jim Carlo (j.carlo@ieee.org) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
> TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
>