[802SEC] RE: [RPRWG] Comment Resolution Process
approve usvbamd
From: "Robert Castellano" <rc@jedai.com>
To: "RDLove" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>, "802.17" <stds-802-17@ieee.org>
Cc: "802 SEC" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Comment Resolution Process
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:41:01 -0500
Message-ID: <NFBBJEBNEMCKNIABOCKJAELKCCAA.rc@jedai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C165F7.20748840"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
In-Reply-To: <004501c16536$0ba84120$6401a8c0@master>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C165F7.20748840
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0015_01C165F7.20748840"
------=_NextPart_001_0015_01C165F7.20748840
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bob Love,
Thanks for informing us all regarding the process. This should help
in understanding the ramifications of voting throughout the
balloting process. In the spirit of election day, there are a
couple things which I would like to see clarified in a revised
draft of the Comment Resolution Protocol.
1. Please include points you made in earlier emails regarding the
comment resolution and balloting process (see attached). It's
important for all aspects of the balloting process to appear in
one place.
2. Comment resolutions are voted on comment by comment basis of the
one's which have commentor objections. Please identify which type of
comment
objections are taken to the WG, (E, T, TR). If all 3 are taken to
the WG, please include % of votes for each type required to approve
a particular comment resolution? Please discuss how specific resolutions
are handled
if fail to receive required % approval. See 1st highlighted text.
3. You also seem to imply that once voting has completed on individual
comments
a subsequent vote is taken on the document as a whole (see 2nd highlighted
text). Please be more explicit as to whether WG voting discussed here is of
the individual comments or document as a whole.
4. You mention that ballots sent to LMSC normally have a 95% approval
rating
at the WG. If all the voting at the WG level is geared toward 75% approval,
I'm not sure how 95% is ever achieved? It is also important to identify
the minimum acceptable WG approval for LMSC ballot if such a criteria
exists?
There are also several issues with the comment resolution database (CRD)
based on
the comment resolution process you outlined here and in earlier messages.
Let me
know whether you think the following changes in the CRD need to be made.
Maybe there is someone who is MSAccess guru who can speedily incorporate
the changes into the database.
1. Each record in the CRD does not include a document issue number
from which the comment was made. As we go to new document revisions
and section numbering changes there is no way to uniquely
determine which comments are associated with which document sections.
For example, in T&D each term is a unique section. As a new term is added
section numbers of the remaining terms are affected. It shall be impossible
to track original comments made against these terms. Having a document
revision # in the record, at least allows us to bring up the old draft and
identify the section
against which the comment was originally made. An alternative might
be to maintain a separate CRD for each document revision; although this
introduces it's own set of problems.
2. The CRD does not support a field "to be reviewed by working group".
The CRD needs to be enhanced to include this field and the associated
reports we will need to generate.
3. The CRD has commentor "closed, unsatisfied, withdrawn" instead of :
"accepted, rejected, accommodated, withdrawn". While the wording
is a little different, we are missing the "accommodated" category.
Should the database be modified to include accommodated, or use
as is?
4. The CRD does not have "Revised Resolution Group proposed Resolution"
field.
Is this something which needs to be added or do we add subsequent updates
to the "response" field with the proper annotations?
5. The voter list in the database should include a field for objectionable
comments. This should include a list of those comment #'s which a voter
objects to the resolution. This list may comprise of either comments
directly submitted by the voter or comments submitted by others.
The voting record needs to make provision for voting specific sections
vs. the entire document in cases where we are balloting a section.
This allows us to track when we see votes in the database what the
votes pertain to. The current voter list and voting record for T&D section 1
of draft needs to be added to the CRD. Do we need to make the above
changes in the CRD to the voting record?
6. There is a problem with sorting by section/subsection, in that MSaccess
performs an alphanumeric sort vs. numeric sort. In this case you'll see
sections 1.31 preceding 1.4. It was a pretty big nuisance
for resolving comments in the text. I tried to fix this in a temporary copy
of the database, but changing the field from alphanumeric to numeric
resulted in all the values being lost.
Regards,
Bob Castellano
Robert Castellano
Jedai Broadband Networks
rc@jedai.com
(732) 758-9900 x236
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of RDLove
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 8:39 AM
To: 802.17
Cc: 802 SEC
Subject: [RPRWG] Comment Resolution Process
All: John Hawkins requested that we describe the comment resolution
process in much the same way as we write a
standard, that is by describing the protocol clearly and unambiguously. I
took a first cut at addressing his request
and circulated my draft to the SEC for their comments. As a result of
feedback I received, here is the Comment
Resolution Process as I understand it, and as reviewed by the SEC.
Comment Resolution Protocol
After all comments on a standard draft are submitted and compiled the
Comment Resolution group gets first crack at
addressing them. Every voting member that wants to be a part of the comment
resolution group may do so. Non-voting
participants may also be allowed to be a part of the group, based on the
discretion of the chair. Understand that being
a part of the group may involve traveling to an additional meeting or two,
and/or participating in teleconferences, in
addition to time spent studying the comments.
Comments are normally grouped for ease in reviewing them.
The comment resolution group attempts to understand each comment and
seriously address both the words and any
underlying concerns that they believe are behind the comments. It is still
the duty of the commenter to recommend the
replacement text, or specifically what must be done to resolve the stated
issue.
If possible, the comment resolution committee should send their proposed
comment resolutions to the original
commenter (whenever they do not simply accept the proposed change).
Sometimes schedule pressures preclude this
possibility prior to the entire working group reviewing the proposed
comments. The working group gets the opportunity
to review the proposed comment resolutions and any email postings that may
support or challenge some of the proposed
resolutions. The entire working group gets to vote to approve the comment
resolutions on a comment by comment basis (If
there is no objection, then no vote is taken. If there is no request to
review a comment resolution, then it is assumed
that there is no objection to it.)
For those comments that are stated to be mandatory to change a vote from
Disapprove to Approve, the commenter is
asked to approve the working group's approved comment disposition. (In some
working groups, the commenter is asked to
approve all comment resolutions.)
Based on comment resolution, some votes may change from Disapprove to
Approve. If after the comment resolution
process is complete, at least 75% of voting members that cast an Approve or
Disapprove vote, now vote Approve, the
ballot is said to have passed.
Note that at any point, a commenter may withdraw a comment. In that case,
it is as if that comment had never been
submitted. The withdrawal of a comment may cause a voter to change his/her
vote from Disapprove to Approve.
What Happens Now?
If the draft does not garner at least 75% approval after comment
resolution, the ballot has failed, and a new draft
is prepared for ballot.
If the draft does achieve a 75% ballot resolution, then we begin the next
steps:
Assuming technical changes were made to the draft during the ballot
resolution process, and/or, if there are still
unresolved negative votes, a revised draft is prepared based on the approved
changes to the text. That draft now goes
out for "recirculation ballot", a period that could be as short as 10 days.
Along with the draft, all Technical
Required Comments that have not been addressed to the commenter's
satisfaction are also circulated. The working group
approves a statement that explains why the ballot comment was not addressed
to the satisfaction of the commenter, and
includes that statement with the comments circulated along with the draft.
The commenter has the right to develop a
rebuttal statement to the one approved by the working group, stating why the
proposed resolution falls short of what is
required. In this case, the rebuttal is included in the recirculation. The
Working Group reply to the comment and any
rebuttal remain with the document all the way through the RevCom approval
submission or until the commenter withdraws
his Disapprove vote for that issue.
During the recirculation, each person that voted on the originally
balloted draft has a chance to change their vote
based on changes made to the document, and based on the information obtained
by reading the Required Technical Comments
that were not addressed to the commenter's satisfaction. (Note: The
recirculation process does not grant voters the
right to now look closely, for the first time, at portions of the document
that were not changed, but were just not
reviewed well during the original ballot period.) If someone that voted on
the initial draft does not respond to the
recirculation vote, then the voter's Approve, Disapprove, or Abstain on the
initial ballot remains unaltered.
All comments made during a recirculation vote are handled the same way
that comments were treated during the initial
vote on the draft. In addition, the voter list for recirculation remains
unchanged during the entire recirculation
process.
If, following the recirculation ballot, there are no new Negative votes,
and no new comments that result in technical
changes to the draft being made, then the Working Group ballot process is
complete and the draft can proceed to LMSC
Sponsor level ballot.
If there are new unresolved comments, or further technical changes made to
the draft as a result of comment
resolution, then another recirculation must take place. Recirculation
ballots continue until there are no new negative
votes, and no technical changes to the draft as a result of comments made.
At this point the draft is ready for LMSC
Sponsor level ballot. Normally ballots sent to LMSC Sponsor level have an
approval rating at the working group level of
at least 95%.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
------=_NextPart_001_0015_01C165F7.20748840
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>Bob Love,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>Thanks for informing us all regarding the=20
process. This should help</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>in understanding the ramifications of voting =
throughout=20
the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>balloting process. In the spirit of =
election day,=20
</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>there are a</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>couple things which I =
would</SPAN></FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D229183415-05112001> like=20
to see clarified in a revised</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>draft of the Comment =
Resolution</SPAN></FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D229183415-05112001>=20
Protocol.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3D"Comic Sans MS"=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>1. Please include points you made in =
earlier=20
emails regarding the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>comment resolution and balloting process (see =
attached). It's</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>important for all aspects of the balloting =
process to=20
appear in</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>one place. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>2. Comment resolutions are voted on =
comment by=20
comment basis of the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>one's which have commentor objections. =
Please=20
identify which type of comment</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>objections are taken to the WG, (E, T, =
TR). If=20
all 3 are taken to</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>the WG, please=20
include % of votes for each type required to=20
approve</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>a particular comment resolution? Please =
discuss=20
how specific resolutions are handled</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>if fail to receive required % approval. =
See 1st=20
highlighted text.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>3. You also seem to imply that once =
voting has=20
completed on individual comments</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>a subsequent vote is taken on the document as =
a whole=20
(see 2nd highlighted</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>text). Please be =
more</SPAN></FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D229183415-05112001>=20
explicit as to whether WG voting discussed here is =
of</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>the individual comments or document as a=20
whole.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>4. You mention that ballots sent to =
LMSC normally=20
have a 95% approval rating</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>at the WG. If all the voting at the WG =
level is=20
geared toward 75% approval,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>I'm not sure how 95% is ever achieved? =
It is also=20
important to identify</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>the minimum acceptable WG approval for LMSC =
ballot if=20
such a criteria</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>exists?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>There are also several issues with the =
comment=20
resolution database (CRD) based on</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>the comment resolution process you outlined =
here and in=20
earlier messages. Let m</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D229183415-05112001>e</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>know whether you think the following changes =
in the CRD=20
need to be made.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>Maybe there is someone who is MSAccess guru =
who can=20
speedily incorporate</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>the changes into the =
database.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>1. Each record in the CRD does not =
include a=20
document issue number</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>from which the comment was made. As we =
go to new=20
document revisions</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>and section numbering changes there is no way =
to=20
uniquely</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>determine which comments are associated with =
which=20
document sections.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>For example, in T&D each term is a unique =
section. As a new term is added</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>section numbers of the remaining terms are=20
affected. It shall be impossible</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>to track original comments made against these =
terms. Having a document</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>revision # in the</SPAN></FONT><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001> =
record, at least=20
allows us to bring up the old draft and identify the =
section</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>against which the comment was originally=20
made. </SPAN></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans =
MS"=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001>An=20
alternative might</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>be to maintain a separate CRD for each =
document=20
revision; although this</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>introduces it's own set of=20
problems.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3D"Comic Sans MS"=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>2. The CRD does not support a field "to =
be=20
reviewed by working group".</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>The CRD needs to be enhanced to include this =
field and=20
the associated</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>reports we will need to =
generate.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>3. The CRD has commentor "closed, =
unsatisfied,=20
withdrawn" instead of :</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>"accepted, rejected, accommodated, =
withdrawn". =20
While the wording</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>is a little different, we are missing the=20
"accommodated" category.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>Should the database be modified to include=20
accommodated, or use</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>as is?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>4. The CRD does not have "Revised =
Resolution=20
Group proposed Resolution" field.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>Is this something which needs to be added or =
do we add=20
subsequent updates</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>to the "response" field with the proper=20
annotations?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>5. The voter list in the database =
should include=20
a field for objectionable </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>comments. This should include a list of =
those=20
comment #'s which a voter</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>objects to the resolution. This list =
may comprise=20
of either comments</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>directly submitted by the voter or comments =
submitted=20
by others.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>The voting record needs to make provision for =
voting=20
specific sections</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>vs. the entire document in cases where we are =
balloting=20
a section.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>This allows us to track when we see votes in =
the=20
database what the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>votes pertain to.</SPAN></FONT><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001> The =
current voter=20
list and voting record for T&D section =
1</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>of draft needs =
to</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D229183415-05112001><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D229183415-05112001> be=20
added to the CRD.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001> =
Do we need to=20
make the above</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>changes in the CRD to the voting=20
record?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>6. There is a problem with sorting by=20
section/subsection, in that MSaccess</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>performs an alphanumeric sort vs. numeric =
sort. =20
</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>In this case you'll see</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3D"Comic Sans MS"=20
size=3D2>sections 1.31 preceding 1.4. It was a pretty big=20
nuisance</FONT><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT face=3D"Comic =
Sans MS">
<DIV><SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001>for resolving comments in the =
text. =20
</SPAN>I tried to fix this <SPAN class=3D229183415-05112001>in =
</SPAN>a=20
temporary copy</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>of the database, but changing the field from=20
alphanumeric to numeric</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>resulted in all the values being=20
lost.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>Regards,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D229183415-05112001>Bob Castellano</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Robert=20
Castellano</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Jedai =
Broadband=20
Networks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:rc@jedai.com";>rc@jedai.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>(732) =
758-9900=20
x236</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
owner-stds-802-17@majordomo.ieee.org=20
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@majordomo.ieee.org]<B>On Behalf Of=20
</B>RDLove<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 04, 2001 8:39 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
802.17<BR><B>Cc:</B> 802 SEC<BR><B>Subject:</B> [RPRWG] Comment =
Resolution=20
Process<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>All: John Hawkins requested =
that we=20
describe the comment resolution process in much the same way as we =
write a=20
standard, that is by describing the protocol clearly and =
unambiguously. =20
I took a first cut at addressing his request and =
circulated my=20
draft to the SEC for their comments. As a result of feedback I =
received,=20
here is the Comment Resolution Process as I understand it, and as =
reviewed by=20
the SEC.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<H1><FONT face=3DArial>Comment Resolution Protocol</FONT></H1>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><FONT face=3DArial> After all comments on a =
standard=20
draft are submitted and compiled the Comment Resolution group gets =
first crack=20
at addressing them.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> =
</SPAN>Every voting=20
member that wants to be a part of the comment resolution group may do =
so.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Non-voting participants may =
also be=20
allowed to be a part of the group, based on the discretion of the =
chair.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Understand that being a part =
of the=20
group may involve traveling to an additional meeting or two, and/or=20
participating in teleconferences, in addition to time spent studying =
the=20
comments.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><FONT face=3DArial> Comments are normally =
grouped for=20
ease in reviewing them.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><FONT face=3DArial> The comment resolution =
group=20
attempts to understand each comment and seriously address both the =
words and=20
any underlying concerns that they believe are behind the =
comments.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It is still the duty of the =
commenter=20
to recommend the replacement text, or specifically what must be done =
to=20
resolve the stated issue.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><FONT face=3DArial> If possible, the comment =
resolution=20
committee should send their proposed comment resolutions to the =
original=20
commenter (whenever they do not simply accept the proposed =
change).<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Sometimes schedule pressures =
preclude=20
this possibility prior to the entire working group reviewing the =
proposed=20
comments.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The working =
group gets=20
the opportunity to review the proposed comment resolutions and any =
email=20
postings that may support or challenge some of the proposed =
resolutions.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><STRONG><U>The entire =
working group=20
gets to vote to approve the comment resolutions on a comment by =
comment=20
basis</U> </STRONG>(If there is no objection, then no vote is =
taken.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> If there is no request to review a =
comment=20
resolution, then it is assumed that there is no objection to=20
it.)</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><FONT face=3DArial> For those comments that =
are stated=20
to be mandatory to change a vote from Disapprove to Approve, the =
commenter is=20
asked to approve the working group's approved comment =
disposition.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(In some working groups, the =
commenter=20
is asked to approve all comment resolutions.)</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><FONT face=3DArial> Based on comment =
resolution, some=20
votes may change from Disapprove to Approve.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><U><STRONG>If after the =
comment=20
resolution process is complete, at least 75% of voting members that =
cast an=20
Approve or Disapprove vote, now vote Approve, the ballot is said to =
have=20
passed.</STRONG></U></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT =
face=3DArial>Note that=20
at any point, a commenter may withdraw a comment.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In that case, it is as if =
that comment=20
had never been submitted. The withdrawal of a comment may cause =
a voter=20
to change his/her vote from Disapprove to Approve.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT=20
face=3DArial> <B>What Happens Now?<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =
=3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></B></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT =
face=3DArial> If=20
the draft does not garner at least 75% approval after comment =
resolution, the=20
ballot has failed, and a new draft is prepared for ballot.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT =
face=3DArial> If=20
the draft does achieve a 75% ballot resolution, then we begin the next =
steps:</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT=20
face=3DArial> Assuming technical changes were made to the draft =
during the=20
ballot resolution process, and/or, if there are still unresolved =
negative=20
votes, a revised draft is prepared based on the approved changes to =
the=20
text.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That draft now =
goes out for=20
“recirculation ballot”, a period that could be as short as =
10 days.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Along with the draft, all =
Technical=20
Required Comments that have not been addressed to the =
commenter’s satisfaction=20
are also circulated.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> =
</SPAN>The working=20
group approves a statement that explains why the ballot comment =
was not=20
addressed to the satisfaction of the commenter, and includes that =
statement=20
with the comments circulated along with the draft.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The commenter has the right =
to develop=20
a rebuttal statement to the one approved by the working =
group, stating=20
why the proposed resolution falls short of what is required. In =
this=20
case, the rebuttal is included in the recirculation. The Working =
Group=20
reply to the comment and any rebuttal remain with the document all the =
way=20
through the RevCom approval submission or until the commenter =
withdraws his=20
Disapprove vote for that issue.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT =
face=3DArial>During the=20
recirculation, each person that voted on the originally balloted draft =
has a=20
chance to change their vote based on changes made to the document, and =
based=20
on the information obtained by reading the Required Technical Comments =
that=20
were not addressed to the commenter’s satisfaction.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(Note: The recirculation =
process does=20
not grant voters the right to now look closely, for the first time, at =
portions of the document that were not changed, but were just not =
reviewed=20
well during the original ballot period.) <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If someone that voted on the =
initial=20
draft does not respond to the recirculation vote, then the =
voter’s Approve,=20
Disapprove, or Abstain on the initial ballot remains =
unaltered.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT =
face=3DArial> All=20
comments made during a recirculation vote are handled the same way =
that=20
comments were treated during the initial vote on the draft.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In addition, the voter list =
for=20
recirculation remains unchanged during the entire recirculation=20
process.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT =
face=3DArial>If,=20
following the recirculation ballot, there are no new Negative votes, =
and no=20
new comments that result in technical changes to the draft being made, =
then=20
the Working Group ballot process is complete and the draft can proceed =
to LMSC=20
Sponsor level ballot.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT =
face=3DArial>If there=20
are new unresolved comments, or further technical changes made to the =
draft as=20
a result of comment resolution, then another recirculation must take=20
place.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Recirculation =
ballots=20
continue until there are no new negative votes, and no technical =
changes to=20
the draft as a result of comments made. At this point the draft =
is ready=20
for LMSC Sponsor level ballot. Normally ballots sent to LMSC Sponsor =
level=20
have an approval rating at the working group level of at least=20
=
95%. &nb=
sp; =20
</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT=20
=
face=3DArial> =
&=
nbsp; =20
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"tab-stops: center 3.0in"><FONT=20
face=3DArial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Robert D. Love<BR>Chair, Resilient =
Packet Ring=20
Alliance<BR>President, LAN Connect Consultants<BR>7105 Leveret=20
Circle Raleigh, NC 27615<BR>Phone: 919=20
848-6773 Mobile: 919 =
810-7816<BR>email: <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:rdlove@ieee.org";>rdlove@ieee.org</A> &nbs=
p; =20
Fax: 208 978-1187</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0015_01C165F7.20748840--
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C165F7.20748840
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment
From: "RDLove" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>
To: "Bob Sultan" <ra_sultan@yahoo.com>,
<rc@jedai.com>
Cc: "Takefman, Mike" <tak@cisco.com>,
"Hawkins, John" <jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com>
References: <NFBBJEBNEMCKNIABOCKJKEIOCCAA.rc@jedai.com>
Subject: Re: Comment Resolution with Working Group
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:06:22 -0500
Message-ID: <04e601c1589e$d9bffe80$6401a8c0@master>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C165F7.202CA9D0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-UIDL: 1003500161.13524.hebe
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C165F7.202CA9D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bob, these are good questions. Let me review the process in some detail
including answers to your questions.
The data base that gets published and printed out for review by the working
group needs to have the following fields:
Commenter
Comment Number
Editorial / Technical / Technical Required
Must be Reviewed by Working Group (This box can be checked by the commenter
or by the Resolution Group - We didn't have
this field in our first ballot. It is there because the commenter may want
to indicate an editorial change is important
enough that it really needs broad review, or the resolution group may feel
uncomfortable not having a particular
proposed resolution get extra scrutiny, or the commenter will not be at the
meeting but has expressed concern with the
proposed resolution, or significant concerns were posted on the reflector
and the resolution group wants to make sure
those concerns are reviewed.)
Original Concern
Original Proposed Resolution
Comment Accepted / Rejected / Accommodated / Comment Withdrawn (One of the
four will be checked. Accepted is only
checked if specific proposed wording is accepted. Accommodated means that
it is believed the resolution may satisfy the
concern of the commenter. Sometimes after discussing the concern with the
commenter, the commenter agrees to withdraw
the comment.)
Resolution Group's Proposed Resolution
Working Groups approved Resolution
There will be a single character field Commenter accepts Resolution.
Note that if through some process you come to a resolution the resolution
group and commenter agree on, then the
Resolution Group's Proposed Resolution is accepted by the commenter.
Once that data base report is circulated all WG members will have a chance
to comment on the Resolution Group's proposed
resolution. That includes the original commenter (Ideally, it would be nice
to get the commenter's input before
publishing the data base. In this case we have too little time to do that.)
Anyone with concerns over the proposed
comment resolutions should post their concerns to the reflector. Based on
reviewing those concerns, the comment
resolution group may decide to change the Resolution Group's Proposed
Resolution prior to or at the meeting.
As a bonus to the WG, if you can have a copy of the proposed updated T&Ds
with highlighted cross reference from each
change to the commenter/comment number it is addressing(a single change may
reference multiple comments, and a single
comment may force multiple changes), that would allow people to see the
implications of the proposed resolutions. That
document could be posted after the data base is posted, if it can't be ready
at the same time.
= = = =
Given that part of the process, at the meeting you will need to have
available an updated data base with an additional
field "Revised Resolution Group's Proposed Resolution" When reviewing
comments with the group we quickly go through the
data base asking people to state which proposed resolutions they have
concerns with. Only those comments, and ones with
"must be reviewed by the WG" will be reviewed by the WG.
All comments with proposed resolutions that go unchallenged become WG
approved resolutions. The working group votes on
approved wording when there is disagreement on approved resolution. a 75%
approval is needed for technical issues.
Mike, please review carefully and let me know if you have any concerns with
this proposed process.
John, you are on copy because the process impacts the design of the data
base.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Castellano
To: RDLove ; Bob Sultan
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:14 PM
Subject: Comment Resolution with Working Group
Bob Love,
Bob Sultan relayed to me your discussion regarding
RS and myself to finish putting our proposed resolutions
into the database and send out to the working group. When
we send to the working group, how do we log the responses?
I see 4 types of responses coming back from the working group.
1. The comment originator agrees with our proposed resolution.
2. The comment originator doesn't agree with our proposed resolution, but
through some process we come to a mutual resolution.
3. We are not able to come to agreement on a mutual resolution with
the comment originator.
4. Some other member of the working group does not agree with our
proposed
resolution that either the commentor originator already agrees with or
doesn't agree with.
It's a given that we will strive for consensus while trying to maintain
the
technical and editorial integrity of the document.
My question is how do we document or log in the database the above
kinds of responses? I see the database supports a response status field
"closed, unsatisfied, withdrawn". Is this where the commentor's
final acceptance/rejection of the resolution logged? What about
another member's dissatisfaction of the resolution? Does that constitute
a new comment that is separately tracked?
At what point do the dispositions transition from proposal mode
to final mode? At what point can the T&D section go through a revision,
and how is the incorporation of changes in the revision,
reflected in the comment database? My assumption is that
the database records are updated to final mode, following
final ballot. I'm not sure any special updating of the database
is required to incorporate the comments aside from the document
reflecting the proposed resolutions.
Let me know if my assumptions about the process are correct.
thanks,
bob
Robert Castellano
Jedai Broadband Networks
rc@jedai.com
(732) 758-9900 x236
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C165F7.202CA9D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bob, these are good questions. =
Let me review=20
the process in some detail including answers to your =
questions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The data base that gets published and =
printed out=20
for review by the working group needs to have the following =
fields:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Commenter </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Comment Number</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Editorial / Technical / Technical=20
Required</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Must be Reviewed by Working Group (This =
box can be=20
checked by the commenter or by the Resolution Group - We didn't have =
this field=20
in our first ballot. It is there because the commenter may =
want to=20
indicate an editorial change is important enough that it really =
needs broad=20
review, or the resolution group may feel uncomfortable not having a =
particular=20
proposed resolution get extra scrutiny, or the commenter will not be at =
the=20
meeting but has expressed concern with the proposed resolution, or =
significant=20
concerns were posted on the reflector and the resolution group wants to =
make=20
sure those concerns are reviewed.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Original Concern</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Original Proposed =
Resolution</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Comment Accepted / Rejected / =
Accommodated /=20
Comment Withdrawn (One of the four will be checked. Accepted =
is only=20
checked if specific proposed wording is accepted. Accommodated =
means that=20
it is believed the resolution may satisfy the concern of the =
commenter. =20
Sometimes after discussing the concern with the commenter, the commenter =
agrees=20
to withdraw the comment.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Resolution Group's Proposed =
Resolution</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Working Groups approved =
Resolution</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There will be a single character =
field =20
Commenter accepts Resolution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Note that if through some process you =
come to a=20
resolution the resolution group and commenter agree on, then the =
Resolution=20
Group's Proposed Resolution is accepted by the =
commenter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Once that data base report is =
circulated all WG=20
members will have a chance to comment on the Resolution Group's proposed =
resolution. That includes the original commenter (Ideally, it =
would be=20
nice to get the commenter's input before publishing the data base. =
In this=20
case we have too little time to do that.) Anyone with concerns =
over the=20
proposed comment resolutions should post their concerns to the =
reflector. =20
Based on reviewing those concerns, the comment resolution group may =
decide to=20
change the Resolution Group's Proposed Resolution prior to or at the=20
meeting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As a bonus to the WG, if you can have a =
copy of the=20
proposed updated T&Ds with highlighted cross reference from each =
change to=20
the commenter/comment number it is addressing(a single change may =
reference=20
multiple comments, and a single comment may force multiple changes), =
that would=20
allow people to see the implications of the proposed resolutions. =
That=20
document could be posted after the data base is posted, if it can't be =
ready at=20
the same time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>=3D =3D =3D =3D</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Given that part of the process, at the =
meeting you=20
will need to have available an updated data base with an additional =
field=20
"Revised Resolution Group's Proposed Resolution" When reviewing =
comments=20
with the group we quickly go through the data base asking people to =
state which=20
proposed resolutions they have concerns with. Only those comments, =
and=20
ones with "must be reviewed by the WG" will be reviewed by the =
WG.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>All comments with proposed resolutions =
that go=20
unchallenged become WG approved resolutions. The working =
group=20
votes on approved wording when there is disagreement on approved=20
resolution. a 75% approval is needed for technical =
issues.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Mike, please review carefully and let =
me know if=20
you have any concerns with this proposed process.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John, you are on copy because the =
process=20
impacts the design of the data base.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Robert D. Love<BR>Chair, Resilient Packet Ring =
Alliance<BR>President, LAN=20
Connect Consultants<BR>7105 Leveret Circle =
Raleigh, NC=20
27615<BR>Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: =
919=20
810-7816<BR>email: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:rdlove@ieee.org";>rdlove@ieee.org</A> &nbs=
p; =20
Fax: 208 978-1187</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Drc@jedai.com href=3D"mailto:rc@jedai.com";>Robert =
Castellano</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=3Drdlove@nc.rr.com =
href=3D"mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com";>RDLove</A> ; <A =
title=3Dra_sultan@yahoo.com=20
href=3D"mailto:ra_sultan@yahoo.com";>Bob Sultan</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 18, =
2001 7:14=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Comment Resolution =
with Working=20
Group</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>Bob=20
Love,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>Bob=20
Sultan relayed to me your discussion regarding</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>RS and=20
myself to finish putting our proposed resolutions</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>into the=20
database and send out to the working group. =
When</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>we send=20
to the working group, how do we log the responses?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>I=20
see 4 types of responses coming back from the working=20
group.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>1. =20
The comment originator agrees with our proposed=20
resolution.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>2. =20
The comment originator doesn't agree with our proposed =
resolution,=20
but</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>through=20
some process we come to a mutual resolution.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>3. =20
We are not able to come to agreement on a mutual resolution=20
with</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>the=20
comment originator.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>4. =20
Some other member of the working group does not agree with our=20
proposed</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001>resolution that either the commentor =
originator=20
already agrees with or</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>doesn't=20
agree with.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>It's a=20
given that we will strive for consensus while trying to maintain=20
the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001>technical and editorial integrity of the=20
document.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>My=20
question is how do we document or log in the database the=20
above</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>kinds of=20
responses? I see the database supports a response status=20
field</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>"closed,=20
unsatisfied, withdrawn". Is this where the=20
commentor's</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>final=20
acceptance/rejection of the resolution logged? What=20
about</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>another=20
member's dissatisfaction of the resolution? Does that=20
constitute</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>a new=20
comment that is separately tracked?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>At what=20
point do the dispositions transition from proposal =
mode</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>to final=20
mode? At what point can the T&D section go through a=20
revision,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>and how=20
is the incorporation of changes in the revision,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001>reflected in the comment database? My =
assumption is that</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>the=20
database records are updated to final mode, =
following</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>final=20
ballot. I'm not sure any special updating of the=20
database</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>is=20
required to incorporate the comments aside from the=20
document</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001>reflecting the proposed=20
resolutions.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D493272422-18102001>Let me=20
know if my assumptions about the process are =
correct.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001> =20
thanks,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001> =20
bob</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D493272422-18102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>Robert=20
Castellano</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>Jedai =
Broadband=20
Networks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:rc@jedai.com";>rc@jedai.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>(732) =
758-9900=20
x236</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C165F7.202CA9D0--
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C165F7.20748840
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment
From: "RDLove" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>
To: "802.17" <stds-802-17@ieee.org>,
<rc@jedai.com>
References: <NFBBJEBNEMCKNIABOCKJOECACCAA.rc@jedai.com>
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] IEEE 802.17 Balloting Instructions
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:37:55 -0500
Message-ID: <0db701c1421c$82565ce0$6401a8c0@master>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C165F7.204E62A0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-UIDL: 1001025332.20956.hebe
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C165F7.204E62A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bob Castellano brings up some good questions that everyone ought to know the
answers to, and probably does if they have
been involved in IEEE 802 for 10 or more years.
For those of you that have not mis-spent your last 10 years, here are the
answers:
All NO votes must be based on issues brought up during the balloting period.
If all issues that have caused a voter to
issue a NO vote have been addressed to that voter's satisfaction, then the
voter no longer has a valid NO vote.
However, the voter must state that the issues have been resolved before his
no vote is converted.
There is no requirement for the working group to address issues brought up
after the ballot period closes. Note,
however, that in the process of resolving comments, additional errors in the
standard are often uncovered by the ballot
resolution group / editors. In IEEE 802.5 we had a separate category for
new issues that were uncovered during ballot
resolution and the working group always worked to resolve these issues,
although they were not associated with NO votes.
If a commenter votes NO without providing specific changes for converting
that NO vote, then the NO vote may be declared
invalid and thrown out.
Balloters may not register NO votes based on issues uncovered after the
ballot has closed. However, it is acceptable to
change your vote to a NO during a recirculation ballot based on information
learned from reading the other comments, and
/ or based on changes made to the draft to resolve issues. This capability
is what drives the rules for recirculation
ballots.
The working group can decide to address new issues not uncovered during the
voting or ballot resolution process, but is
under no obligation to do so. They are, however, leaving the draft subject
to being rejected by voters during the LMSC
ballot. Therefore, concerns with the standard are normally addressed fully
prior to LMSC balloting.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Castellano
To: John Hawkins ; RDLove
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] IEEE 802.17 Balloting Instructions
John,
No problem. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a "Netscape problem",
similar
to the ones I had before. I think it would be really useful to writeup
the
balloting process, so that people clearly understand the implications of
their vote. Also, understanding the comment resolution process.
Understanding
scenarios like, if all the TR comments of a commentor are addressed are
they obligated to
change a NO vote to a vote to approve. How is a commentor's "NO vote"
"officially" handled if they do not provide any TR comments. Does
it stand as a "NO", changed to a "Yes", or thrown out? Are commentor's
allowed to continue to vote "NO", if their original comments have been
addressed, but they bring up a new reason which was previously in
the document that was balloted and not due to a change from the
previous version.
thanks,
bob
Robert Castellano
Jedai Broadband Networks
rc@jedai.com
(732) 758-9900 x236
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hawkins [mailto:jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:31 AM
To: 'rc'; RDLove
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] IEEE 802.17 Balloting Instructions
Hi Bob,
You don't see the file 'cause I never created it! One of those things
that fell through the proverbial crack. I
know Bob sent out several emails with instructions and clarifications. Also,
the ballot itself was built to be
self-explanatory (wishful thinking I know).
Before we vote again, I'll compose a more comprehensive "help" doc for
this purpose. I won't undertake that right
now as there is no vote underway.
john
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Castellano [mailto:rc@jedai.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:53 PM
To: RDLove
Cc: Hawkins, John [WWP1:2268:EXCH]
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] IEEE 802.17 Balloting Instructions
Bob,
I receive an error when I try this link. This may be one of the
reasons
why people are not following the process as requested.
thanks,
bob c.
Robert Castellano
Jedai Broadband Networks
rc@jedai.com
(732) 758-9900 x236
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of RDLove
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 11:28 AM
To: 802.17
Subject: Fw: [RPRWG] IEEE 802.17 Balloting Instructions
All, on August 10th I posted the balloting instructions attached to
the bottom of a long note. Since then I
have received two requests for instructions on posting the ballots. Here
are the concise balloting instructions for the
Terms and Definitions draft, without the excess verbiage contained in the
first note.
(John Hawkins, please post the full balloting instructions at
http://www.ieee802.org/17/documents/drafts/Ballot_instr.txt, as indicated in
the August 10th note)
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
- - - - - - - - - - - - Balloting Information - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
PLEASE RESPOND NO LATER THAN August 31, 2001
COMMENTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER September 8, 2001
RETURN ALL BALLOTS & COMMENTS BY E-MAIL TO:
E-MAIL: jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com and bob.sultan@fnc.fujitsu.com
----- Please use 1 of the following 4 Subject lines on your email
ballot --------
P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = APPROVE WITH COMMENT
P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = APPROVE WITH COMMENT
P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = DISAPPROVE [comment(s) enclosed]
P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = ABSTAIN
----- Begining of Ballot Form. Cut and paste text below this line
only please --------
TA Document IEEE802.17-11Jul2001/:7, July 11, 2000
Working Group Ballot August, 2001
(Terms and Definitions for Resilient Packet Ring)
Your Name:___________________________
___ APPROVE WITHOUT COMMENT
___ APPROVE WITH COMMENTS
___ DO NOT APPROVE (Please attach specific comments for remedy)
___ ABSTAIN, List Reason i.e. Lack of Expertise, Lack of Time:
____________________________
------ END OF BALLOT SECTION -------
IF YOU ARE VOTING "APPROVE WITHOUT COMMENT" or ABSTAINING, YOUR WORK
IS DONE AT THIS POINT.
COMMENT INFORMATION:
COMMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE INSTANCE OF AN "APPROVE WITH
COMMENT"
VOTE AND REQUIRED IN THE INSTANCE OF A "DO NOT APPROVE" VOTE.
"DO NOT APPROVE" VOTES MUST BE BACKED UP BY COMMENTS CLASSIFIED AS
"TECHNICAL REQUIRED" AND THESE MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT REMEDY AS
TO CHANGE THE VOTE TO AN "APPROVE" IF ADOPTED. ALL COMMENTS SHOULD
INCLUDE CHANGES REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE THE STATED CONCERN.
PLEASE USE THE FORM BELOW FOR ALL COMMENTS. MULTIPLE COMMENTS CAN BE
SUBMITTED IN ONE ASCII TEXT FILE OR E-MAIL. SIMPLY ADD YOUR PERSONAL
DATA
AND THEN COPY THE LINES FOLLOWING "------ COMMENT SECTION
-------"
AND REPEAT AS OFTEN AS REQUIRED WITHIN THE FILE OR EMAIL. PLEASE USE
THE
FORMAT BELOW, MAKING SURE THAT THE COMMENTS ARE IN ASCII FORM AND
THAT
EACH COMMENT INCLUDES:
CommenterName:
CommenterEmail:
CommenterPhone:
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany:
Acceptable comment types:
E = Editorial
T = Technical
TR = Technical Required
------ COMMENT SECTION -------
Comments on P802.17/TD1.0
CommenterName:
CommenterEmail:
CommenterPhone:
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany:
Clause:
Subclause:
Page:
Line:
CommentType (E, T or TR):
Comment #:
Comment:
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy:
RemedyEnd:
- - - - - - - - - - END OF BALLOT FORM - - - - - - - - - - - -
If you should have any questions, problems or comments please
contact:
Mike Takefman
Chair, IEEE P802.17 Working Group
Office: 613-271-3399
takf@cisco.com
Bob Love
Vice-Chair, IEEE 802.17 Working Group
Office: 919-848-6773 Fax: 208-978-1187
rdlove@ieee.org
Bob Sultan
Editor, Terms and Definitions Section for IEEE 802.17 Working Group
Office: 845 731-211
bob.sultan@fnc.fujitsu.com
John Hawkins
Co-Webmaster, IEEE 802.17 Working Group
Office: 770 705-708-7375
jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C165F7.204E62A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bob Castellano brings up some good =
questions that=20
everyone ought to know the answers to, and probably does if they have =
been=20
involved in IEEE 802 for 10 or more years. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For those of you that have not =
mis-spent your last=20
10 years, here are the answers:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>All NO votes must be based on issues =
brought up=20
during the balloting period. If all issues that have caused a =
voter to=20
issue a NO vote have been addressed to that voter's satisfaction, then =
the voter=20
no longer has a valid NO vote. However, the voter must state that =
the=20
issues have been resolved before his no vote is converted. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There is no requirement for the working =
group to=20
address issues brought up after the ballot period closes. Note, =
however,=20
that in the process of resolving comments, additional errors in the =
standard are=20
often uncovered by the ballot resolution group / editors. In IEEE =
802.5 we=20
had a separate category for new issues that were uncovered during ballot =
resolution and the working group always worked to resolve these issues, =
although=20
they were not associated with NO votes. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If a commenter votes NO without =
providing specific=20
changes for converting that NO vote, then the NO vote may be declared =
invalid=20
and thrown out.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Balloters may not register NO votes =
based on issues=20
uncovered after the ballot has closed. However, it is acceptable =
to change=20
your vote to a NO during a recirculation ballot based on information =
learned=20
from reading the other comments, and / or based on changes made to the =
draft to=20
resolve issues. This capability is what drives the rules for =
recirculation=20
ballots.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The working group can decide to address =
new issues=20
not uncovered during the voting or ballot resolution process, but is =
under no=20
obligation to do so. They are, however, leaving the draft subject =
to being=20
rejected by voters during the LMSC ballot. Therefore, concerns =
with the=20
standard are normally addressed fully prior to LMSC =
balloting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Best regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Robert D. Love<BR>Chair, Resilient Packet Ring =
Alliance<BR>President, LAN=20
Connect Consultants<BR>7105 Leveret Circle =
Raleigh, NC=20
27615<BR>Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: =
919=20
810-7816<BR>email: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:rdlove@ieee.org";>rdlove@ieee.org</A> &nbs=
p; =20
Fax: 208 978-1187</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Drc@jedai.com href=3D"mailto:rc@jedai.com";>Robert =
Castellano</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Djhawkins@nortelnetworks.com=20
href=3D"mailto:jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com";>John Hawkins</A> ; <A=20
title=3Drdlove@nc.rr.com href=3D"mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com";>RDLove</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 20, =
2001 11:51=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [RPRWG] IEEE =
802.17=20
Balloting Instructions</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>John,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>No problem. I just wanted to make =
sure it=20
wasn't a "Netscape problem", similar</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>to the ones I had before. I =
think it=20
would be really useful to writeup the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>balloting process, so that people clearly =
understand=20
the implications of</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>their vote. Also, understanding the =
comment=20
resolution process. Understanding</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>scenarios like, if all</SPAN></FONT><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D987152515-20092001> the=20
TR comments of a commentor are addressed are they obligated=20
to</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>change a NO vote to a vote to =
approve. How is a=20
commentor's "NO vote"</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>"officially" handled if they do not provide =
any TR=20
comments. Does</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>it stand as a "NO", changed to a "Yes",=20
or thrown out? Are commentor's</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>allowed to continue to vote "NO", if their =
original=20
comments have been</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>addressed, but they bring up a new reason =
which was=20
previously in </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>the document that was balloted and not due =
to a=20
change from the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001>previous version.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3D"Comic =
Sans MS"=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D987152515-20092001></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001> =20
thanks,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D987152515-20092001> =20
bob</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>Robert=20
Castellano</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>Jedai =
Broadband=20
Networks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:rc@jedai.com";>rc@jedai.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>(732) =
758-9900=20
x236</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> John Hawkins=20
[mailto:jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, =
September 20,=20
2001 10:31 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'rc'; RDLove<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: =
[RPRWG] IEEE=20
802.17 Balloting Instructions<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D300252814-20092001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Hi=20
Bob,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D300252814-20092001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D300252814-20092001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>You don't see the file 'cause I never created it! One =
of those=20
things that fell through the proverbial crack. I know Bob sent out =
several=20
emails with instructions and clarifications. Also, the ballot itself =
was=20
built to be self-explanatory (wishful thinking I know).=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D300252814-20092001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D300252814-20092001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>Before we vote again, I'll compose a more comprehensive =
"help" doc=20
for this purpose. I won't undertake that right now as there is no =
vote=20
underway.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D300252814-20092001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D300252814-20092001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>john</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Robert =
Castellano=20
[mailto:rc@jedai.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 17, 2001 =
6:53=20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> RDLove<BR><B>Cc:</B> Hawkins, John=20
[WWP1:2268:EXCH]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [RPRWG] IEEE 802.17 =
Balloting=20
Instructions<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D490305122-17092001>Bob,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D490305122-17092001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D490305122-17092001>I receive an error when I try this =
link. =20
This may be one of the reasons</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D490305122-17092001>why people are not following the =
process as=20
requested.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D490305122-17092001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
=
class=3D490305122-17092001> =20
thanks,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D490305122-17092001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
=
class=3D490305122-17092001> =
bob=20
c.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D490305122-17092001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>Robert=20
Castellano</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>Jedai =
Broadband=20
Networks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:rc@jedai.com";>rc@jedai.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#000080 size=3D2>(732) =
758-9900=20
x236</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
owner-stds-802-17@majordomo.ieee.org=20
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@majordomo.ieee.org]<B>On Behalf Of=20
</B>RDLove<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 23, 2001 11:28=20
AM<BR><B>To:</B> 802.17<BR><B>Subject:</B> Fw: [RPRWG] IEEE =
802.17=20
Balloting Instructions<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>All, on August 10th I posted =
the balloting=20
instructions attached to the bottom of a long note. Since =
then I=20
have received two requests for instructions on posting the=20
ballots. Here are the concise balloting instructions for =
the Terms=20
and Definitions draft, without the excess verbiage contained in =
the=20
first note.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(John Hawkins, please post the =
full=20
balloting instructions at <A target=3D_blank=20
=
href=3D"http://www.ieee802.org/17/documents/drafts/Ballot_instr.txt";><FON=
T=20
face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2>http://www.ieee802.org/17/documents/drafts/Ballot_instr.txt</FON=
T></A>,=20
as indicated in the August 10th note)<FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Best regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Robert D. Love<BR>Chair, Resilient Packet Ring=20
Alliance<BR>President, LAN Connect Consultants<BR>7105 Leveret=20
Circle Raleigh, NC 27615<BR>Phone: 919=20
848-6773 Mobile: 919=20
810-7816<BR>email: <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:rdlove@ieee.org";>rdlove@ieee.org</A> &nbs=
p; =20
Fax: 208 978-1187</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- - - - - - - - - - - - Balloting Information - - - - - - - =
- - - -=20
- - - </DIV>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>PLEASE RESPOND NO LATER THAN =
August 31, 2001=20
<BR>COMMENTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER September 8, 2001=20
<BR>RETURN ALL BALLOTS & COMMENTS BY E-MAIL TO: </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>E-MAIL: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com";><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> and </FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:bob.sultan@fnc.fujitsu.com";><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>bob.sultan@fnc.fujitsu.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2> </FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>----- Please use 1 of the =
following 4 Subject=20
lines on your email ballot -------- </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE =3D =
APPROVE WITH COMMENT=20
<BR>P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE =3D APPROVE WITH COMMENT <BR>P802.17 =
TD1.0=20
RESPONSE =3D DISAPPROVE [comment(s) enclosed] <BR>P802.17 TD1.0 =
RESPONSE =3D=20
ABSTAIN </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>----- Begining of Ballot =
Form. Cut and=20
paste text below this line only please -------- </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>TA Document =
IEEE802.17-11Jul2001/:7, July 11,=20
2000<BR></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Working Group Ballot =
August, 2001=20
<BR>(Terms and Definitions for Resilient Packet Ring) =
</FONT></P><BR>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Your =
Name:___________________________=20
</FONT></P><BR>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>___ APPROVE =
WITHOUT COMMENT=20
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>___ APPROVE =
WITH COMMENTS=20
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>___ DO NOT =
APPROVE (Please=20
attach specific comments for remedy) </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>___ =
ABSTAIN, =20
List Reason i.e. Lack of Expertise, Lack of Time: =20
____________________________</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>------ END OF BALLOT SECTION =
-------=20
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>IF YOU ARE VOTING "APPROVE =
WITHOUT COMMENT"=20
or ABSTAINING, YOUR WORK <BR>IS DONE AT THIS POINT. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>COMMENT INFORMATION: </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>COMMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE =
INSTANCE OF=20
AN "APPROVE WITH COMMENT" <BR>VOTE AND REQUIRED IN THE INSTANCE =
OF A "DO=20
NOT APPROVE" VOTE. <BR>"DO NOT APPROVE" VOTES MUST BE BACKED UP =
BY=20
COMMENTS CLASSIFIED AS <BR>"TECHNICAL REQUIRED" AND THESE MUST =
PROVIDE=20
SUFFICIENT REMEDY AS <BR>TO CHANGE THE VOTE TO AN "APPROVE" IF=20
ADOPTED. ALL COMMENTS SHOULD <BR>INCLUDE CHANGES =
REQUIRED TO=20
ELIMINATE THE STATED CONCERN.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>PLEASE USE THE FORM BELOW FOR ALL =
COMMENTS.=20
MULTIPLE COMMENTS CAN BE <BR>SUBMITTED IN ONE ASCII TEXT FILE OR =
E-MAIL.=20
SIMPLY ADD YOUR PERSONAL DATA <BR>AND THEN COPY THE LINES=20
FOLLOWING "------ =
COMMENT=20
SECTION -------" <BR>A</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>ND =
REPEAT AS OFTEN=20
AS REQUIRED WITHIN THE FILE OR EMAIL. PLEASE USE THE <BR>FORMAT =
BELOW,=20
MAKING SURE THAT THE COMMENTS ARE IN ASCII FORM AND THAT<BR>EACH =
COMMENT=20
INCLUDES:</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
<BR>CommenterName:=20
<BR>CommenterEmail: <BR>CommenterPhone: <BR>CommenterCellPhone:=20
<BR>CommenterCompany: <BR><BR></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Acceptable=20
comment types: <BR>E =3D Editorial <BR>T =3D =
Technical <BR>TR =3D=20
Technical Required </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>------ COMMENT SECTION ------- =
<BR>Comments=20
on P802.17/TD1.0 </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>CommenterName: =
<BR>CommenterEmail:=20
<BR>CommenterPhone: <BR>CommenterCellPhone: =
<BR>CommenterCompany:=20
<BR>Clause: <BR>Subclause: <BR>Page: <BR>Line: =
<BR>CommentType (E,=20
T or TR): <BR>Comment #: <BR>Comment: </FONT></P><BR>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>CommentEnd: <BR>SuggestedRemedy:=20
</FONT></P><BR>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>RemedyEnd: </FONT></P>
<P>- - - - - - - - - - END OF BALLOT FORM - - - - - - - - - - - =
- </P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If you should have any questions, =
problems or=20
comments please contact: </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Mike Takefman <BR>Chair, IEEE =
P802.17 Working=20
Group <BR>Office: 613-271-3399 <BR></FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:takf@cisco.com";><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>takf@cisco.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bob Love <BR>Vice-Chair, IEEE =
802.17 Working=20
Group <BR>Office: 919-848-6773 Fax: 208-978-1187 =
<BR></FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:rdlove@ieee.org";><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>rdlove@ieee.org</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bob Sultan<BR>Editor, Terms and =
Definitions=20
Section for IEEE 802.17 Working Group<BR>Office: 845=20
731-211<BR></FONT><A =
href=3D"mailto:bob.sultan@fnc.fujitsu.com";><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>bob.sultan@fnc.fujitsu.com</FONT></A></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John Hawkins<BR>Co-Webmaster, =
IEEE 802.17=20
Working Group<BR>Office: 770 705-708-7375<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com";><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com</FONT></A></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2></FONT> </P></DIV></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></=
BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C165F7.204E62A0--
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C165F7.20748840--
----- End forwarded message -----