Re: [802SEC] PAR for Approval (PICS)
Hi Tony:
A formal response to comments have not been formulated and sent out as yet. This will be done before 5:00 PM today. As far as your comment is concerned, unless I have missed something, is that the PAR should not exist. That is, you have not commented on the content of the PAR. If there is/are other comments please inform me. In regard to the impact on schedule one could hypothesize that a sucessful recircullation of the 802.20 draft could have the draft in front of REVCOM in June, sooner if one used continuous processing. Alternatively looking at the last excercise in PICS creation by 802.16 it took two years. Give that both documents are equivelent in size or that the 802.20 draft is in fact larger, why would you believe that it would /could be done more quickly than it took the very hard workers in 802.16? I think you might agree that two months is significantly less than two years.
Arnie
-------------- Original message from Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk>: --------------
> Hi Arnie -
>
> You are correct that there is no 802 rule requiring a PICS proforma,
> and shame on us for not including it in our rules; however, it has
> been past 802 practice, and good practice at that. I should point out
> that I'm not singling 802.20 out in this matter; my comments on the
> 802.21 Sponsor ballot ask them to include a PICS proforma also.
>
> I would be interested to know who the "we" is in your sentence "Your
> comment will be addressed by the working Group and we will abide by
> their decission". I certainly have no obligation to abide by any
> decisions of 802.20; neither, I believe, does any other member of the
> EC, with the possible exception of yourself should 802.20 choose to
> direct your position.
>
> Do your emails below constitute the 802.20 response to my original
> comment on this PAR, or can I look forward to seeing that before 5pm today?
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 18:03 18/03/2008, greenspana@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >Hi Tony:
> >
> >We have your negative vote and comment for the Sponsor Ballot in
> >which you discuss the PICS matter. Your comment will be addressed by
> >the working Group and we will abide by their decission. I repeat
> >that there is no 802 rule that requires the PICS to be included in
> >the base document.. The 802 Working Group would like the PAR
> >approved so that we can get started on the PICS development.
> >
> >Arnie
> >
> >-------------- Original message from Tony Jeffree
> >: --------------
> >
> >Hi Arnie -
> >
> >There is no sense in which the draft of 802.20 "has been approved by
> >the EC". We approved sending it to Sponsor ballot; that was all.
> >
> >Given that you will undoubtedly have at least one more recirculation
> >before you're done on this project, I don't see that including the
> >PICS as part of the next recirc is going to adversely affect
> >progress on this project, especially as generating a PICS proforma
> >is (should be) a straightforward and largely mechanical exercise.
> >That being the case, I see no reason (a) why 802.20 shouldn't just
> >do it now or (b) why 802.20 would want to go through the process of
> >developing it under a separate project.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 15:55 18/03/2008, greenspana@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >>Hi Tony:
> >>
> >>Thank you for your input on the PICS Pro Forma. As you are aware
> >>the PICS is not a requirement. In fact as you might recall 802.16e
> >>was approved without a PICS they later did a PAR to add the PICS,
> >>which was approved. You, of course, are free to vote against this
> >>PAR approval motion. However the Draft for 802.20 has been approved
> >>by the EC and in now in recircullation. The Working Group agrees
> >>the the PICS is beneficial, that is the reason for the PAR. This is
> >>the least impact on schedule for 802.20 which has been delayed so long.
> >>
> >>Arnie
> >>-------------- Original message from Tony Jeffree
> >>: --------------
> >>
> >> > Arnie -
> >> >
> >> > A comment on this PAR.
> >> >
> >> > There are comments in the current Sponsor ballot on the base
> >> > standard, one of them being mine, that indicate that the PICS should
> >> > be included in the base standard. My view is that doing it as a later
> >> > amendment is inappropriate; the PICS proforma is an important tool
> >> > from the point of view of the implementer, as it clearly and
> >> > concisely summarizes what the conformance requirements are. So I
> >> > believe that 802.20 should withdraw this proposed PAR and include the
> >> > PICS in the current 802.20 draft. Hence, it is my intent to vote
> >> > against submission of this PAR if it comes up for approval on Friday.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Tony
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > At 12:32 18/03/2008, greenspana@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >All:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Attached please find information on a PAR to be presented for
> >> > >approval at the Friday Plenary.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Arnie
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
>
>
> ----------
> 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.