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

[RPRWG] Comment submission: some guidelines and hints

Title: Announcement of opening of 802.17 D0_2 Working Group Comment Period
To facilitate smooth and quick processing of the comments you are presumably making on
the draft under review, and to speed up the progress of the comment resolution sessions we
will engage in next month, here are some things you should keep in mind when making and
submitting your comments.
1. The most common mistake when submitting comments during the previous round was to
send me your "CommentaryData.USR" file as-is along with your 'ballot', rather than following
the process described on Page 11 of the Commentary Users Guide ("CRD Instructions v2.pdf").
Please don't do this! It causes much unnecessary work for me and considerably slows down
the process of posting your comments on the web site.
2. The second most common mistake was to omit clause, page and line numbers from your
comments (or to provide the wrong numbers). This is really quite detrimental to progress. I
use the clause and page numbers to sort the comments so that I can divide them up into
the various sections; these blocks of comments are then passed to the respective section
editors for review and for resolution during the meeting. Failure to insert the proper clause
numbers will cause me to spend a lot of time figuring out where your comments should go,
which not only delays the posting of comments but also frequently results in errors and
mis-assigned comments.
3. Please do not enter figure or table numbers into the clause number box. This also messes
up the sort. Instead, make a reference to the specific figure or table within the body of your
comment. (In the CRD to be used for the next draft version after D0.2, there will be a separate
box for entering figure or table numbers.)
4. If you have a comment that applies to the majority of clauses in the draft, enter '0'
(the number zero) in the clause number field. During my sorting process, I will be looking for
these so-called 'clause 00' comments and will not forward them to the section editors, but
will resolve them myself during the meeting as necessary.
5. If you have a comment that applies to a small number of clauses (2-3), then please submit
the same comment against each clause in turn, with a note in the comment to indicate that
you have submitted the same comment against multiple clauses (identify the clauses). This
will alert the respective section editors to the fact that a cross-clause issue has been raised,
thereby permitting them to make prior arrangements for proper resolution during the meeting
(for example, by bringing together two tracks for a joint resolution).
6. Editorial vs. technical comments. A large number of the comments submitted in the first
review cycle were really editorial in nature but were identified as technical (or even technical
binding). Please don't do this. If you truly believe that clarifications or wording changes would
substantively alter the technical content of the draft, then by all means submit such comments
as technical. However, if you recognize it to be an editorial issue, or are not sure, then submit
the comment as editorial. It is the responsibility of the editors to elevate the importance of
a comment from editorial to technical if they believe that it represents a material technical
change in the draft.
In any case, submitting a comment as editorial does not mean that it will automatically be
handled by the editor; a commenter can always insist that his or her editorial comment be
brought before the group for consideration. Also, the editors have no incentive to reject your
editorial comments without good reason, as you can always resubmit it in the next round,
and they do not want to be dealing with the same comment over and over.
Try to avoid submitting vast numbers of technical binding comments as well. (Technical
binding comments will have a much more substantial impact on the commenter when we
start WG voting; at that time, the commenter will be asked to be physically present when
his or her comment is being resolved, and will be required to perform a signoff after
it is resolved.) Technical binding comments represent a serious technical problem with
the draft that the committee has not fixed and that will cause you to vote against the entire
802.17 standard. I recommend starting with a technical comment, and then, if the committee
decides to reject it, resubmitting as a technical binding comment if you disagree with the
7. While I realize that most of us are engineers and thus likely to be perfectionists, please try
to refrain from submitting comments on wording, spelling and grammar issues at this stage
in the draft. Obviously, if such an issue makes it impossible to comprehend the meaning, or
makes the clause technically incorrect, then a comment is justified. Otherwise, keep in mind
that: firstly, we are a very long way away from even sponsor ballot and should be focusing on
technical completeness rather than fixing the English; and, secondly, the draft is currently quite
volatile and incomplete, and so you may well be fixing language in a paragraph that will vanish
in a subsequent review cycle, thereby wasting not only your time but that of the entire
committee. If you must make such comments at this early stage, then at least please make
them editorial so that the editors can deal with them offline rather than expending a lot
of valuable meeting time. If you wish to work with the editors in fixing the issues, say so in
your comment.
8. Please try to submit comments that are accompanied by suggested remedies that are
as complete as you can make them. For example, if you have an issue with a figure and
have an alternate figure in mind, submit your proposed replacement in any acceptable form
(or even bring a hand-drawn version to the meeting!). If you are recommending a change in
text, try to provide the alternative text in the suggested remedy field, or as a separate file
along with your comment. This will not only simplify the editor's task and speed up the
production of the draft, but can also significantly improve the chances of the committee
accepting your comment without much discussion, as your intent will be much clearer.
Note that as we get much closer to Sponsor Ballot, we will be summarily rejecting
comments if their suggested remedies do not specify exact replacement text where
applicable. Getting into the habit of submitting precise remedies will substantially improve
the chances of your comments being accepted by the committee down the road.
Best regards,
- Tom Alexander
Chief Editor, P802.17