| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
802.20 Members
As editor I would like to thank those of you who have already returned your practice letter ballots and comments. I would like to request that those of you who have not yet done that respond with your comments by the deadline. Your comments are vital in helping 802.20 improve and progress the draft specification.
The current Practice Letter Ballot was prepared in accordance with the agreements reached at the March IEEE80.20 meeting and the process for generating that draft was followed as discussed at the meeting. The meeting agreed that given the nature of the changes, creation of a traditional marked-up version would not be feasible (or informative). The draft current draft, therefore, contains no diff-marks. However, the editor actually tried seeing what a mark-up would look like and has created and posted a partial mark-up. It should be obvious to anyone that the decision on the quality and content of the draft needs to be made based on the current text as a whole and the mark-up is of little, if any value in determining that. Indeed the amount of change that would be involved was recognized at the meeting and that is why the document is labeled Draft 0.1m rather than Draft 3.0. That is also one of the prime reasons why this is a practice rather than regular ballot.
In a nutshell, the current draft consists of the UMBFDD V&V version submitted by Motorola, the performance parameters submitted in C802.20-07-21r1 by Qualcomm, the 802.20 remaining text which includes the 625 kHz mode unchanged, parts of the overview and the Common Algorithm and Assigned sections. In addition the draft incorporates a NEW harmonized TDD mode. The inclusion of such was agreed to at the meeting. Other contributions are included by virtue of those being a part of UMBFDD. The quality of the draft is commensurate with the sources of the material. It is obviously quite easy to identify the new TDD text, even without mark-up.
The process agreed to in March was that the editor would create the first cut of the draft and circulate it to the Editorial task Group by April 2, 2007. The members of the ETG were to get their comments back to the editor by April 6, 2007. That was the process that was followed. By April 6 the editor had received a positive indication and editorial input from two of the ETG members and a comment from the Motorola member stating that he did not think the draft was ready. Given the timetable and that the net responses were positive the decision was to release the draft for Practice Letter Ballot to the full working party so that they could provide input to improve the draft and get it ready for regular balloting.
The effect of the Practice Letter ballot is to provide the group with a structured way of having their issues addressed and providing full traceability of how every specific comment is resolved. All future drafts will, thus, also have full mark-up over the previous version allowing orderly progression to a high quality end product.
I conclude again with a request that you provide us with the best input possible by the deadline and look forward to improving the draft with the assistance of the ETG at the Montreal meeting.
Mark Klerer Editor 802.20 |