Re: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.21/D13 to RevCom
G'day all
I have reviewed the responses to my comments in the recent 802.21
recirculation SB. I believe that the conditions of the Conditional
Approval have NOT been satisfied. I object to sending the draft to
RevCom. I request that the draft be recirculated and the draft be
removed from the RevCom agenda.
In particular I refer to comment #4.
* In the previous ballot, I requested a change
* That request was responded to in a way that did not address the issue
raised in the comment
* In the most recent ballot, I requested the same change
* The WG responded in a completely different way compared to the
previous ballot
* Sending the draft to RevCom at this time denies me the right to reply
to their response
In the next Sponsor Ballot I will comment
* The basis of rejecting my comment appears to be that 802.11v is not
yet a standard
* On this basis anything in the draft related to 802.11u (there is a lot
of material) must also be removed because 802.11u is not yet a standard
* I am not advocating the 802.11u material be removed
* I am requesting that my requested change is considered on its merits
and not rejected based on fallacious and inconsistent arguments
Andrew Myles
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
David_Law@3Com.com
Sent: Monday, 18 August 2008 3:01 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.21/D13 to RevCom
Hi Vivek,
In review of the Tony Jeffree 1/2 [
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.21/file/08/21-08-0249-00-0000-p802-21-to-rev
com.ppt#8
] I note that Tony is a Disapprove voter and has marked this comment as
Must Be Satisfied. I further note that the response doesn't state that
the comment is out of scope due to being related to unchanged text - nor
does it state that the comment is a restatement of a previous comment -
instead the response simply provides a rebuttal. Based on this you
appear to me to be treating this comment as a new valid Disapprove
comments - is this correct ?
I did try to find the comments and response from the previous
recirculations on the IEEE 802.21 web site but was unable to find them
so I'm unable to see what comment #1 on recirculation #4 stated.
Best regards,
David
***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> wrote on 15/08/2008 19:45:43:
> Dear EC Colleagues:
>
> I am reporting on the status of P802.21/D13.0, as per the Clause 19
> Conditional Approval granted on 18 July, 2008.
>
> The Sponsor Ballot Recirculation-6, including the review of
> P802.21/D13.0 ran from 30 July, 2008 - 14 August, 2008.
> The final vote tally is: 126/5/11
> The Approval Ratio is 96.18% and the Return Ratio is 86%.
>
> The conditions have been met.
> ? No New Disapprove votes were received during this
recirculation
> ? Total of 12 comments were submitted. 7 of these are from
> Disapprove voters.
> ? No Technical changes are required as a result of these
comments
> ? No new valid Disapprove comments on new issues
>
> The complete report is available at:
>
http://mentor.ieee.org/802.21/file/08/21-08-0249-00-0000-p802-21-to-revc
om.ppt
>
> Accordingly, I shall be forwarding P802.21 to RevCom.
>
> Best Regards,
> Vivek
>
> Vivek Gupta
> Chair, IEEE 802.21
> ----------
> 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.