Re: [802SEC] OmniRAN EC SG submission of PAR and 5C proposal for consideration in the November session
Pat,
Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Let me provide as OmniRAN chair some early remarks for clarification ahead of the formal response coming from the EC SG.
Related to note 1.2: You are right that the sponsor has not considered yet the proposed project and its impact on future activities. However the note itself is proposed text for the conclusion of the considerations of the sponsor taking place in the EC closing plenary. We hope that the outcome of the discussion of the EC will be as described by the note, but I see that our expression is quite strong. Your proposed text is not making such strong statement and may be more agreeable.
Related to note 3.2/5.6: Thanks for making this comment. We had exactly in mind what you are bringing up, and you may have missed '_Prior_ to Sponsor agreement to forward a draft to Sponsor Ballot...', i.e. we are addressing all the ballots before the sponsor ballot. It shows that we might have to rephrase the sentence avoiding the term 'sponsor ballot' in the sentence to make the meaning more obvious and to prevent misperception.
Bye
Max
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 00:23
To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: OmniRAN EC SG submission of PAR and 5C proposal for consideration in the November session
I may have additional comments on this PAR later based on discussion early during the plenary week, but here are some early comments on the additional notes on the PAR:
On the additional notes:
Regarding the note on 1.2: We shouldn't make any statement about the "intention of the sponsor" to develop follow-on projects. We haven't identified or discussed such projects yet as a sponsor. Replace" It is the Intention of the sponsor to initiate the development" with "The sponsor may initiate the development".
Regarding the note on 3.2 and 5.6:
a) Sponsor ballot is too late to seek the input from other groups on a cross working group project, and
b) Any SA member can join Sponsor ballot so there is no need to have a special invitation at that point
In the past, we have put in this sort of special provision to allow one or more voting members of other working groups to vote on a WG ballot. That may be appropriate here.
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:14 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] OmniRAN EC SG submission of PAR and 5C proposal for consideration in the November session
OmniRAN EC SG concluded the work on the PAR and 5C proposal for consideration by the EC in the upcoming November session.
The proposed text for PAR and 5C is available by
https://mentor.ieee.org/omniran/dcn/13/omniran-13-0086-00-ecsg-proposed-par-and-5c.docx
The submission of the PAR and 5C proposal was unanimously approved by the OmniRAN EC SG.
Bye
Max
--
____________________________________________________________________
Max Riegel - Chair, IEEE 802 OmniRAN Executive Committee Study Group
<max.riegel@ieee.org> Ph: +49 173 293 8240
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.