Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hello Ben,
For a comment to be in-scope (valid) it must identify a problem with the draft. So I read "on new issues" to be specifically issues (problems) with the draft itself.
Pointing out issues with the reasoning in a resolution is all good and well, and certainly something we should engage in, but for the balloting process to converge, we need to keep the focus on the problems with the draft.
In this case I believe the CRG has revisited their reasoning for the previous reject and updated the resolution. But since it is not a new issue with the draft I believe the conditions are met.
Regards,
-Robert
From: n81147@gmail.com <n81147@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 4:06 PM To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@intel.com>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Regarding conditional approval for P802.11be/D7.0 to be forwarded to RevCom Robert, I disagree that the conditions are met. The recirculation received new, valid, in scope technical comments from a disapprove voter. The statement "here are no new valid DISAPPROVE comments on new issues that are not resolved to the satisfaction of the submitter from existing DISAPPROVE voters." is not correct. The ballot received comments on the incorrect resolution of valid technical comments from the prior ballot that are in scope. Pointing out errors and untrue statements in the resolution details, which are new issues. FWIW Ben
On 8/14/2024 1:22 PM, Stacey, Robert wrote:
Benjamin A. Rolfe Blind Creek Associates Ben@blindcreek.com +1 408 332 0725 (Mobile)
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 |