Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Ballot: Forward IEEE 802.15.1 to Sponsor Ballot




I have to disapprove the motion to forward the 802.15.1 draft to sponsor
ballot.

In addition to supporting Bob O'Hara's and Roger Marks views, I have 2
additional concerns:

1. the comment resolution file is too complicated for comprehending what the
disposition 
   of the comments is
	The standard companion writes for recirculation ballots "Copies of
the outstanding
	negatives and the ballot review committee's responses to them with
the reasons 
	for rejecting the proposed changes" 

	The actual file received is a trail many recirculation ballots. This
is fine for the 
	archive of the work. However, a reviewer for recirculation ballots
needs to get a 
	clear and simple representation of the outstanding negatives.

	The file presented as the file with unresolved negatives does not
have a tab
	with "unresolved negatives". Taking the LB10 Comments as such a
representation,
	one have to make too many assumptions to understand the effects of
two columns 
	with codes. Some of the comments are depicted as Accepted and Open.
Does
	that mean that the comment is accepted and the resulting edits have
not yet 
	been included in the draft?

2. it appears to me that the draft going into Sponsor Ballot is a moving
target 
	The comments marked as Accepted and Open, gives me the impression
that
	results of the comments are still to be made in the a future cycle.

	LB 10 comment number 9 has the following Editor's note:
	 Editor Note: ICG the Editor-in-Chief will submit a comment in
Sponsor Ballot 
	 and submit a Bluetooth errata too that explicitly identifies the
word usage in 
	 question both in the Std and the Spec - using each organizations
unique 
	 paragraph referencing in their source documents - the BRC will
resolve this 
	 comment prior to the completion of the Sponsor Ballot phase.

	Does "prior to the completion of the Sponsor Ballot phase" mean that
during 
	Sponsor Ballot, comments from Working Group Ballots are introduced
into the 
	draft? 

I appreciate that the synchronization of two organizations is difficult. The
resulting time, needed to synchronize need to be taken, rather than starting
a ballot with pending changes.

Regards
---------------
Vic Hayes
Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies 
Zadelstede 1-10
3431 JZ  Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 2)
FAX: +31 30 609 7498
e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
http://www.orinocowireless.com/

> ----------
> From: 	Jim Carlo[SMTP:jcarlo@ti.com]
> Reply To: 	jcarlo@ti.com
> Sent: 	08 May 2001 13:24 PM
> To: 	IEEE802
> Subject: 	[802SEC] +++ SEC Ballot: Forward IEEE 802.15.1 to Sponsor
> Ballot
> 
> 
> RESEND TO CLARIFY WHAT ACTION WE ARE TAKING. SORRY FOR DUPLICATION. I HAVE
> ALSO ADDED POINTERS TO DRAFTS, REMAINING COMMENTS, BALLOT RESOLUTION PER
> VIC
> HAYES REQUEST.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/8May2001
> Issue Date: 8May2001 Closing Date: 19May2001
> Moved By: Bob Heile  Seconded By: Stuart Kerry
> Move: Approve Forwarding to Sponsor Ballot: 802.15.1 (Draft Standard for
> Part 15.1: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
> specifications for Wireless Personal Area Networks(TM))
> 
> Notes:
> 
> 1) During the Recirculation Ballot, one additional No voter made eight
> comments, these comments were resolved without Technical Changes to the
> draft through discussions with the WG Ballot Resolution Group, and the No
> voter has changed his vote to an approve. The original NO voter continued
> to
> vote NO with additional NO comments. Because of the additional No vote
> received (even though resolved), a new SEC motion is required for approval
> to move to Sponsor Ballot.
> 
> 2) During the IEEE 802 Plenary HH SEC Meeting on 15Mar01 the following
> motion was approved:
> "Move that the ExCom forward IEEE Draft 802.15.1/D1.0 to Sponsor ballot,
> based on a successful completion of a WG re-circulation ballot.
> Conditional
> approval to expire at the beginning of the Portland Plenary Meeting"
> 
> 3) The final ballot count is:
> 74 Working Group Voting Members
> 56 Voting Approve
>  1 Voting Do Not Approve (Disapprove comments circulated during last
> recirculation ballot)
>  1 Abstain
> 
> 4) The Draft can be found here:
> http://ieee802.org/15/private/Draft/
> 99000D10P802-15-1__Draft_Standard.pdf
> Note: The username/password for the WG Web Site is: P802.15/way_cool
> 
> II. The unresolved negative comment Workbook can be found here:
> http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/01117r12P802-15_WG-LB8-Comment-Form.xls
> 
> III. The letters & reports on resolution can be found here:
> http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/Gilb-LB10-Decline-Letter.pdf
> LB8-Reply-Comments_4May01.PDF
> LB10-Comments_4May01.PDF
> or all via:
> http://ieee802.org/15/pub/LB10/LB10.html
> 
> 
> Jim Carlo (j.carlo@ieee.org) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
> TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
>