| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Steve, Please do not mix up the revision before comment resolution (R0) and the final version after (R2).
The email at the bottom of this thread was send out before OmniRAN EC SG concluded comment resolution. R0 contains the collection of comments received until Tue 5pm. Actually
R0 went out to the OmniRAN SG members on Tue 7:30pm to allow them to prepare for the resolution discussion on Wednesday - a procedure to which we agreed in our Tue PM1 meeting. R2 contains the approved outcome of the Wednesday discussions in OmniRAN ECSG and is the one, which was forwarded to EC on Wed 4:33pm as the response of OmniRAN ECSG on the
received comments. Please make use of R2:
https://mentor.ieee.org/omniran/dcn/13/omniran-13-0091-02-ecsg-nov-2013-collected-comments-on-draft-par-proposal.xlsx Bye Max
-----Original Message----- Max, In this email you include R0 of the document, but there seems to be an R2 on the Mentor server. Please clarify which version of the document we will be voting on this
afternoon. Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich) Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:25 AM To:
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comments received on the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal Hello Subir, Thanks for bringing this up. There are two aspects in this case: - Formal reasons not to set an official precedence that submitters of PAR comments have not to adhere to the IEEE 802 rules - Considerations about the uniqueness and substance of the comments For formal reasons to protect the integrity of IEEE 802 policy and procedures I decided not to officially take the comments into account. Unfortunately we were very tight in time in the Wednesday ECSG meetings which did not to allow to bring up the submission for information in left-over meeting time - the usual
procedure on how to handle incoming material, which did not make it on the official agenda. Nevertheless I personally reviewed the comments of Charlie Perkins to determine whether there are aspects brought up, which were not covered by the discussion of the other
comments. When comparing the comments of Charlie in the scope of the orderly submitted comments to the PAR (see Charlie's comments attached), the comments are addressing issues also brought up by other commenters, which led to modifications and clarifications
of the PAR text. Charlie was present in the meeting and contributed to the discussions of the text changes in the PAR. Regards the proposal to make the intended specification more normative; we had multiple comments to resolve on the nature of the intended
specification - whether it should become a 'Standard', a 'Recommended Practice' or a 'Guide', with the conclusion to balance the received comments by sticking to 'Recommended Practice'. As mentioned above: unfortunately there was no time left at the end of the Wednesday meetings to open Charlie's document and do the cross-check of Charlie's comments in the
ECSG. Hello Subir, I hope I was able to show that all comments brought up on the draft PAR proposal were seriously considered, even when brought up to attention on completely informal
ways. Kind regards Max -----Original Message----- From: ext Das, Subir [mailto:sdas@appcomsci.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 06:29 To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich);
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG;
jpgilb@gmail.com Cc: 'ext Charles E. Perkins'; h chan Subject: RE: Comments received on the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal Hello Max, I am wondering why ECSG has decided not to address Charlie's comments. I understand that Charlie submitted the comments after Tuesday 5 pm deadline but if the purpose of a
PAR/5C is to be reviewed by other groups and members, then these comments should have been addressed. You asked James and my understanding is that his comment was "The rules don't require OmniRAN to address them. However, they will probably come up in the
Friday closing if you don't, so the best policy would be to address them." OTH, ECSG completely ignored it.
Regards, _Subir
-----Original Message----- From:
owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich) Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:07 PM To:
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG;
jpgilb@gmail.com Cc: 'ext Charles E. Perkins' Subject: [802SEC] Comments received on the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal To make sure that we are not missing any comments to the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal I would like to confirm the receipt of the comments. In my email, I received comments from the following groups/individuals: - Pat Thaler (individual on Oct 17th) - James Gilb - IEEE 802.1 - IEEE 802.11 - IEEE 802.19 The comments are collected in https://mentor.ieee.org/omniran/dcn/13/omniran-13-0091-00-ecsg-nov-2013-coll ected-comments-on-draft-par-proposal.xlsx for processing by the OmniRAN EC SG. Please send me a notice, if comments were submitted and the submitter is not mentioned above. Furthermore I received comments by private email from Charles Perkins at Tue, 11:15 PM, more than 6 hours after the submission deadline. The comments received after submission
deadline will not be addressed by the EC SG. James, please advise if the EC SG should address the late PAR comments submission. Bye Max ---------- 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. |