Re: [802SEC] ***SEC Five Day Review*** Response to ACMA Consultation "Strategies for Wireless Access Services"
Steve,
Good catch. But a better remedy, in my opinion, is to just delete
"are". That would be an editorial correction.
"All", I believe, would represent a technical change to the 802.18
document. It could been seen to imply that every wireless networking
standard being developed in 802 fits under the WAS umbrella. This
might not be what 802.18 meant to say.
Roger
At 10:38 AM -0700 06/04/13, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>Mike,
>
> I believe I found a small grammatical error in the second
>paragraph. The first sentence in the second paragraph currently reads,
>
>Members of IEEE 802 are currently developing a wide range of wireless
>networking standards that are fit under the WAS umbrella.
>
>I believe it should read,
>
>Members of IEEE 802 are currently developing a wide range of wireless
>networking standards that all fit under the WAS umbrella.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
>Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:26 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] ***SEC Five Day Review*** Response to ACMA
>Consultation "Strategies for Wireless Access Services"
>
>Dear SEC Members,
>
>Attached is a document that the RR-TAG proposes to file with the
>Australian Telecommunications and Media Authority (ACMA). This is in
>response to their consultation titled "Strategies for Wireless Access
>Services". The full ACMA consultation is available on the RR-TAG web
>site with the other March meeting documents. My apologies if the title
>is not clear but the document number is 18-06-0021. This response was
>previously submitted to the EC but the chair directed that consideration
>be delayed until the RR-TAG completed the ballot process.
>
>I now again propose that the EC 5 day review process be started. The
>content has not changed from the original document circulated to the EC
>but the format has.
>
>The RR-TAG was unable to complete this response during the Denver
>meeting. It was decided to use the reflector in addition to holding
>conference calls to develop this response.
>
>The response originally needed to be filed by COB 3 April Canberra time.
>Since the email ballot began the ACMA has extended the response date to
>COB 19 April meaning that the RR-TAG response must be filed on 18 April
>in order to meet the deadline.
>
>The RR-TAG approved this response in the first ballot but it was
>submitted for a recirc due to having had substantial format edits
>suggested and accepted. In the ballot completed by the midnight CDT 10
>April deadline the RR-TAG again approved it this response.
>
>I propose that the EC review begins now (12 April) closes at midnight
>CDT 17 April.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>
>+1 972 684 7518 (ESN 444 7518) Voice
>+1 972 684 3774 (ESN 444 3775) FAX
>+1 972 814 4901 (ESN 450 9401) Mobile
>
> <<18-06-0020-00-0000_ACMA_text_recirc.doc>>
>
>
>----------
>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.