Re: [802SEC] Clause 20 Report regarding P802.16k to Sponsor Ballot
Bob,
Thanks for asking. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about this.
The answer is (2): the changes to the draft are not "substantive" and
therefore do not require recirculation.
The Abstract that was changed is part of the frontmatter. I discussed
this issue in my note mainly because it was the subject of a new
Disapprove comment. Rather than rule the comment invalid, I preferred
to address it, since this could be done without substantive changes
to the draft (or, depending on your viewpoint, without any changes to
the part of the draft approved in WG ballot).
As part of the editorial update in going from D2 to D2a, one change
was made to the draft itself. However, that change was non-technical
and non-substantive.
Regards,
Roger
P.S. As a footnote, the non-substantive change was to the following
sentence:
"The user_priority parameter of the M_UNITDATA primitive is not
encoded in the MAC CPS MSDU as described in 6.5.5.2.1.1."
That sentence followed a few sentences saying that a bunch of
parameters ARE "encoded into the MAC CPS MSDU as described in
6.5.5.2.1." However, since this particular sentence says that the
parameter is NOT so encoded, the reference to the subclause
describing such encoding is meaningless. Therefore, the editor chose
to drop the words "as described in 6.5.5.2.1.1". That's the only
change to the body of the draft.
On Aug 22, 2006, at 05:21 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
> Roger:
>
> Sorry, but I'm not precisely clear on your report. Is the abstract
> you
> refer to in the front matter or the body of the draft. I would guess
> the first, but am not sure. Could you please clarify that either:
>
> 1. None of the changes made are part of the draft (the front
> matter is
> not part of the approved standard and therefore, by my interpretation,
> not part of the draft that must be approved at WG ballot);
>
> 2. or you have ruled that none of the changes to the draft are
> "substantive" and therefore do not require recirculation.
>
> --Bob Grow
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:05 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Clause 20 Report regarding P802.16k to Sponsor
> Ballot
>
> To: 802 EC
> cc: 802.16 reflector
>
> Dear EC Colleagues:
>
> I am writing to report on the status of P802.16k, per the Clause 20
> Conditional Approval granted on 21 July.
>
> The Working Group Letter Ballot Recirculation #22a, including the
> review of P802.16k/D2, ran from 31 July - 15 August. The final report
> is here:
> http://ieee802.org/16/netman/ballot22/report22.html
>
> The conditions have been met. No new Disapprove votes were received
> during recirculation. One comment was received; it was a new
> Disapprove comment from a previous Disapprove voter requesting an
> editorial clarification in the document's Abstract to ensure that
> readers are aware that the document being amended (802.1D) was
> previously amended by 802.17a. We agreed to the change and prepared
> draft P802.16k/D2a, in which we also incorporated additional
> frontmatter. No technical changes were made. The commenter accepted
> the change and flipped to Approve.
>
> Accordingly, I have submitted P802.16k/D2a for Sponsor Ballot.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roger
>
>
> Roger B. Marks <mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org>
> Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access <http://
> WirelessMAN.org>
>
> ----------
> 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.