Comment ID,Date,Comment #,Name,Email,Phone,Style,Index #,Classification,Vote,Affiliation,Category,Page,Subclause,Line,Comment,File,Must Be Satisfied,Proposed Change,Resolution Status,Resolution Detail,Other1,Other2,Other3
14365000023, 8-May-2012 12:20:42 EDT,r03-115,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,114,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.152,5,"""may"" suggests behavior of a TDD in use, rather than definition of the term.",,Yes,"Delete ""but may share the same frequency""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-114,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,113,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,25,3.174,26,"This is apparently an achronym and not a defintion (it does appear in achronyms"".  I'm not at all clear what the text that follwos the achronym means, which makes it not useful. Not exactlhy sure what ""realization"" has to do with any of it.  All of these are clues it does not belong in clasue 3.",,Yes,delete definition rom clause 3. Read  clause 11.6 of the 2012 IEEE Standards Style Manual before submitting another draft to balloting.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-113,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,112,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,25,3.173,21,"This is apparently an achronym and not a defintion (it does appear in achronyms"".  I'm not at all clear what the text that follwos the achronym means, which makes it not useful. Not exactlhy sure what ""realization"" has to do with any of it.  All of these are clues it does not belong in clasue 3.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-112,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,111,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,25,3.172,19,"The term ""wireless access"" is NOT a connection (it does often USE a connection).",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-111,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,110,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,25,3.171,16,"Two problems: first, this is an uneeded defintion. Second, the definition is inconsistent with how the term is used in this standard, at least several places wehre it means the SDU provided at the CS and not ""any protocol above the CS"" as stated here.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-110,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,109,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,25,3.169,11,Another restatement of the obvious.,,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-109,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,108,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,,3.168,7,"You don't need this definition.  The Uplink Channel Descriptor message is listed in the appropriate MAC clause. Clause 3 is for definition of terms, not definitions of message names or other protocol features.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-108,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,107,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.165,62,"Each definition should be a brief, self-contained description of the term in question and shall not contain any other information, such as requirements or elaborative text.",,Yes,"delete ""A frame may have no UL relay zone, or the UL relay zone may consist of the entire uplink
subframe, depending on the method used to separate the transmissions on the access and relay links.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-107,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,106,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.164,56,"Each definition should be a brief, self-contained description of the term in question and shall not contain any other information, such as requirements or elaborative text.",,Yes,"delete ""(except TTR RS in TDD mode)"" and ""A frame may have no UL access zone, or the UL access zone may consist of the entire uplink subframe, depending on the method used to separate the transmissions on the access and relay links.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-106,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,105,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.163,52,Not valid English.,,Yes,"change to ""The management and control interface that exists between the SS and the BS.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14362000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-105,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,104,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.162,49,"TLV is defined in achronyms as ""Type, Length, Value"" and how this used to encode information is described in normative text. Definition is inappropropriate.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-104,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,103,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.161,47,"Term is not used in this standard. The term ""turbo code"" is used, but it's definition is already well established in the field of communications.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-103,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,102,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.158,34,"Each definition should be a brief, self-contained description of the term in question and shall not contain any other information, such as requirements or elaborative text.  Everything after ""identifies the transport connection"" is ""other information""",,Yes,"Delete ""All user data traffic is carried on transport connections, even for service flows that implement connectionless protocols, such as Internet Protocol (IP). An active or admitted service flow [identified by a service flow identifier (SFID)] maps to a Transport CID assigned by the base station (BS).""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-102,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,101,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.157,29,Defintion contains extraneous information. In addition to explanatory text (listing what it isn't) the last sentence is defining a different term.,,Yes,"Delete ""It does not include any traffic over the basic, primary, or secondary management connections. A fragmentable transport connection is a connection that allows fragmentation of service data units (SDUs).""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-101,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,100,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.156,24,Gradu in definition.,,Yes,"Delete ""A DL subframe may, or may not, have a transparent zone.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-100,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,99,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.154,15,"""TDM bursts are not separated by gaps or preambles."" is a requirement, not part of the definition. Actually all of this sounds like it should be part of the uplink and downlink normative description.",,Yes,"Delete ""TDM bursts are not separated by gaps or preambles."" or delete definition from Clause 3.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-99,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,98,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,24,3.153,8,"""TDMA bursts are separated by preambles and are separated by gaps in transmission if subsequent bursts are from different transmitters."" is a requirement, not part of the definition. Further, don't need ""is determined by..."" in the definition. Actually, this and 3.154 sound like they belong in the normative description of the uplink and downlink.",,Yes,Delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-98,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,97,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.15,54,"3.150.  Don't re-define English words. It's violating IEEE-SA rules and bad form altogether. To make it worse, the word ""system"" is used in this draft inconsistent with this definition (see 15.3, Table 775, 15.2.2, 15.3.1, 15.3.1.1 (where it implies there are other components in a system besides BS and SS), and so on....",,Yes,"delete definition from clause 3; use a different, unambiguous term where needed.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-97,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,96,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.149,59,Definition contains requirements. Defintiions in cluase 3 shall not contain requirements.,,Yes,"Delete ""SSTTG is measured from the time of the last sample of the transmitted burst to the first sample of the received burst at the antenna port of the SS.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-96,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,95,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.148,54,Definition contains requirements. Defintiions in cluase 3 shall not contain requirements.,,Yes,"Delete ""SSRTG is measured from the time of the last sample of the received burst to the first sample of the
transmitted burst at the antenna port of the SS.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14361000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-95,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,94,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.146,46,"""Subcarrier indices are greater than or equal to zero."" is a requirement not part of a proper definition of the term.",,Yes,"Delete ""Subcarrier indices are greater than or equal to zero.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-94,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,93,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.144,36,Invalid definition,,Yes,"Delete ""encoder that is
passed to subcarrier mapping and sent through one antenna, or passed on to the beamformer."" and ""The number of STC streams in both vertical and horizontal encoding systems is the same as the number of output paths of the STC encoder. This term may be used interchangeably with the word stream when used in the context of OFDMA STC.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-93,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,92,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.143,30,"Definition contains extraneous information, normative requirements. """"The number of STC layers in a system with vertical encoding is one, while in horizontal encoding, it depends on the number of encoding/modulation paths. This term may be used interchangeably with the word layer when used in the context of OFDMA STC."" is not part of the defintion but instead are requirements of STC. I'd also advive against using the term  ""layer"" as that has a rather strong (different) meaning in protocol definitions. The term is used only one place (8.4.9.2 Encoding),  so it would be better to just move the informatin there and delete this term from clause 3.",,Yes,Delete definition from clause 3 and move the constraints/descriptive text to 8.4.9.2.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-92,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,91,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.142,25,"""These systems are given a priority from a regulatory point of view within a given
frequency band."" is a requiremetn and not part of the definition of the term.",,Yes,"Delete ""These systems are given a priority from a regulatory point of view within a given frequency band.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-91,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,90,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.138,12,"""The operation during this frame may require limitations on the transmit power."" is not part of a valid definition, but once again, describing operational characteristics or behaviors.",,Yes,"Delete ""The operation during this frame may require limitations on the transmit power.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-90,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,89,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,23,3.136,5,"""A 32-bit quantity"" is a normative requirement (the legnth of a field, or range of a value, or both in this case). The rest is obvious from the term.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-89,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,88,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.134,58,SDU is already defined in the standard glossary,,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-88,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,87,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.133,54,SAP is already defined in the standard glossary,,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-87,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,86,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.132,49,Extraneous text in defnition.,,Yes,"Delete ""in order to support secure communications""  and ""The SZK is a head of key hierarchy used to satisfy the security requirements such as integrity
protection for MAC management messages within a defined security zone.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-86,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,85,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.129,36,Extraneous text in defnition.,,Yes,"Delete ""This shared information includes traffic encryption keys (TEKs) and cipher block chaining (CBC) initialization vectors (IVs).""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14360000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-85,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,84,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.127,26,"A term is not mode dependent, and the context for a term definedin Clause 3 is every IEEE standard (it goes into the IEEE global database), and is not mode dependent.  This does not define a term, it defines an operational capability.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3; move information to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-84,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,83,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.126,23,Extraneous text in defnition.,,No,"Delete ""i.e., a non-transparent RS with unique BSID and operating in distributed scheduling mode.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-83,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,82,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.128,31,"what in the definition makes this a ""secondary"" definition?  This isn't a valid or useful term as defined here.",,No,"Change to ""A connection suitavble for transfer of delay-tolerant management information""
or delete definition from clause 3.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-82,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,81,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.124,14,Normative requirements in definition.,,Yes,"Delete ""RSTTG is measured from the time of the last sample of the transmitted burst to the first sample of the received burst at the antenna port of the RS."" and move to appropriate normative clause if necessary (i.e. if not redundant).",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-81,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,80,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.123,9,Normative requirements in definition.,,Yes,"Delete ""RSRTG is measured from the time of the last sample of the received burst to the first sample of the transmitted burst at the antenna port of the RS.."" and move to appropriate normative clause if necessary (i.e. if not redundant).",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-80,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,79,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.122,7,"Restatement of the obvious. Don't need to include kinds of frames defined in the standard in clause 3, that would be what normative clauses are for.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-79,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,78,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.121,4,"Unneccessary defintion that also includes extraneious text ""(i.e. such as
between an RS and its superordinate station).""",,No,"delete definition from clause 3,  or at least the extraneous ""(i.e. such as
between an RS and its superordinate station).""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-78,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,77,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,21,3.119,59,"A lot of extraneous information in definition, requirements, dependencies,  and poor punctuation.",,Yes,"Change to: ""An equipment set that provides connectivity to other RSs or subscriber stations (SS).""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-77,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,76,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,21,3.118,55,Invalid definition.,,Yes,"Delete ""This can be a relay uplink or downlink.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-76,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,75,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,21,3.117,52,Units are normative descriptions of a representation. It's also probably wrong as there are many regulatory bodies and many ways to specify thresholds.,,Yes,"Change to: ""Signal level threshold above which the receiver has to initiate an action to comply with applicable regulations""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14359000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-75,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,74,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,21,3.116,47,Invalid defintion.  It refers to other parts of this standard; it described required behaviors when using the RTK; It refers to itself in the defintion;  I seems like it belongs in clause 15.,,Yes,"delete definition from clause 3, move information to clause 15 as needed.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-74,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,73,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,21,3.115,43,"Do we really need ""frequency"" twice in the same term?  And are RS and MS devices exluded from this definition on purpose?",,No,"Change where used to  ""band center frequency"" which is self defining and delte definition from clause 3.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-73,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,72,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,21,3.114,36,Extraneous text in defnition.,,Yes,"Delete ""The contained traffic parameters define scheduling behavior of uplink (UL) or downlink (DL) flows associated with transport connections.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-72,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,71,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,21,3.113,1,"Seriously, this does not belong in clause 3.  Contains a LOT of normative information. I have never seen a definition include a figure.  This goes in overview, architecture...someplace other than clause 3!  You don't re-define commonly used technnical terms that are already in the IEEE database.",,Yes,"Delete from clause 3. Move to someplace appropriate and re-write to provide relevance to this standard (llike indicate the scope of the standard?, what we call a MAC SDU,  CS SDU, etc?).",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-71,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,70,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,20,3.111,36,Extraneous text in defnition.,,Yes,"delete second sentence ""In a given frequency allocation there may be SSU, non-SSU, or both SSU and non-SSU, assigned as primary users.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-70,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,69,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,20,3.109,27,"""established during..."" isn't part of the definition.",,Yes,"Chagne to ""A delay-tolerant connection for exchange of management messags"".",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-69,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,68,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,20,3.106,18,This contains the normative description of an interface parameter. This does not belong in clause 3.,,Yes,delete definition from clause 3; move to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-68,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,67,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,20,3.105,13,This contains the normative description of an interface parameter. This does not belong in clause 3.,,Yes,delete definition from clause 3; move to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-67,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,66,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,20,3.104,10,This contains the normative description of an interface parameter. This does not belong in clause 3.,,Yes,delete definition from clause 3; move to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-66,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,65,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,,3.103,6,This contains the normative description of an interface parameter. This does not belong in clause 3.,,Yes,delete definition from clause 3; move to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14358000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-65,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,64,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,20,3.102,1,This contains the normative description of an interface parameter. This does not belong in clause 3.,,Yes,delete definition from clause 3; move to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-64,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,63,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,19,3.99,55,"You are actually describing aggregation, which you define elsewhere as ""concatination"" (incorrectly as concatination is a method of aggregation), and ""packing"" is an English word which should be used according to it's English defintion, not redefined.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-63,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,62,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,19,3.98,51,"Term is not used in this standard,",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-62,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,61,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,19,3.97,48,Invalid definition (extra text).,,Yes,"Delete ""The Operator ID is contained in the
Base Station ID.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-61,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,60,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,19,3.96,44,"Huh? This definition adds nothing useful. The term appears to be used excatly once in the standard.  If what it is is not clear there, this surely doesn't help any.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-60,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,59,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,19,3.94,37,Extra text.,,Yes,"Delete ""For any mobile station (MS),""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-59,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,58,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,19,3.89,19,"""An MS is always a subscriber station (SS) unless specifically excepted otherwise in this standard.""  is a characteristic of an MS, not part of the definition of the term ""Mobile Station"".   Also ""during halts"" is awkward.",,Yes,"Change to ""a subscriber station which may  operate while in motion, or while not in motion.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-58,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,57,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,19,3.88,15,"""equivalent to n physical slots (PSs), where n = 2m and m is an integer ranging from 0 through 7."" is a normative description, and bounding, not appropriate to clause 3.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3; move to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-57,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,56,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,19,3.87,12,Invalid definition. Second sentece is describing required behaivor of a system.,,Yes,"Delete ""Systems of a coexistence community equally share the role of Master system on a rotating basis.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-56,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,55,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.84,60,Extraneous text in defnition.,,Yes,Delete everything after the first sentence.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14357000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-55,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,54,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.83,50,"Invalid definition.  Clue: anything that starts with ""This process is acomplished..."" is probably about to describe normative behaivor.",,Yes,"Delete ""This process is accomplished in the downlink (DL) by having two or more BSs transmitting the same
medium access control layer (MAC) or physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PDU) to the MS so that
diversity combining can be performed by the MS. In the uplink (UL), it is accomplished by having two or
more BSs receiving (demodulating, decoding) the same PDU from the MS so that diversity combining of the
received PDU can be performed among the BSs""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-54,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,53,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.82,45,"Examples are ""elaborative text"". Defintions shall not contain elaborative text.If you need examples, consider that the definition may not be ""self contained"".  The term ""Location Based Servives"" is well known, not specific to 802.16, and does not need to be in clause 3. What is meant is (or should be) clear in the normative clauses that use the term.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-53,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,52,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.81,42,"Term ""licensing regime"" is not used in this standard.",,No,,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-52,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,51,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.78,32,"Invalid defintion. Not valid English. Sort of describes an interference neighbor, or at least from a particular perspective, but not neighborhood.  I can guess...you mean the collection other devices within a devives SOI which may cause interference to, and the set of devices whcih may be impacted by, the device.",,Yes,See comment (my guess is my suggested change).,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-51,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,50,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.77,28,"Descibes the structure of the burst, not a valid defintion for clause 3.",,Yes,Move to 15.3.5.2.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-50,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,49,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.76,20,"""When the IBS gets the OCSI allocation
and starts the operating stage, it will cease from using the ICSI."" is not part of a valid defintion (behavior).",,Yes,"Delete ""When the IBS gets the OCSI allocation and starts the operating stage, it will cease from using the ICSI.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-49,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,48,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.75,14,Everything after the first sentence is invalid in clause 3.,,Yes,"Delete ""The initial ranging connection is identified by a well-known connection identifier (CID). This CID is defined as a constant value within the protocol since an SS has no addressing information available until the initial ranging process is complete."" and move to appropriate normative clause.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-48,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,47,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,18,3.72,1,"Three in one?  You've got a lot of ""Explanatory Text"" describing the different types of hand-overs which probably belongs in the normtive clause describing hand-over, but definitely not in clause 3. ""break-before-make"" does not appear to be used in the standard.",,Yes,"Delete ""A break-before-make HO is where service with the target BS starts after a disconnection of service with the previous serving BS. A make-beforebreak HO is where service with the target BS starts before disconnection of the service with the previous serving BS.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-47,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,46,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.71,61,"This definition makes me dizzy. Most of it is normative requirements for the key.  Messages sent to members of a multicast group are multicast messagse, not broadcast messages.",,Yes,"Change to: ""A key  used to encrypt the group traffic encryption keys (GTEKs) sent to members of the multicast group.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-46,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,45,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.69,53,"Verbose, explanative text.",,Yes,"Delete ""but are typically simultaneous.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14356000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-45,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,44,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.68,48,"""FA index assignment is used in combination with operator-specific configuration information provided to the mobile station (MS) in a method outside the scope of this standard."" is not valid here.",,Yes,"Delete ""FA index assignment
is used in combination with operator-specific configuration information provided to the mobile station
(MS) in a method outside the scope of this standard.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-44,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,43,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.66,41,"Incorrect definition. ""Frame"" is used in this standard to mean things other than the PHY frame, i.e.in other than ""some physical layer specifications."" It is used in the MAC and CS clauses for example.",,Yes,delete definition from clause 3,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-43,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,42,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.64,31,"Explanatory, extraneious information. Fast base station switching  is Base station (BS) switching using a fast switching mechanism. Why it is used, and all the rest, is not part of the definition of the term.",,Yes,"Delete ""to improve link quality. The mobile station (MS) is only transmitting/receiving data to/from one of the
active BS (anchor BS) at any given frame. The anchor BS can change from frame to frame depending on the
BS selection scheme.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-42,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,41,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.62,23,"normative text in definition. This seems redundant to ""Dynamic Channel Selection"" also.",,Yes,"Change to ""The ability of a system to switch to different physical radio frequency"" or use the term Dynamic Channel Selection throughout.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-41,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,40,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.61,17,Normative stuff in the definition.,,Yes,"Change to ""The ability of a system to switch to a different physical (frequency) operating channel"".  Move the rest to the appropriate normative clause.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-40,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,39,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.57,1,more extra text in definition. Don't explain what it's used for.,,Yes,"Delete ""so that ramp-down can occur and delay-spread can clear receivers"".",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-39,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,38,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.55,60,Normative requirements in a definition,,Yes,"Delete "" A frame may have no DL relay zone  depending on the method used to separate the transmissions on the access and relay links."" or entire definition.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-38,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,37,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.54,55,Normative requirements in a definition.,,Yes,"Delete at least ""The DL access zone may consist of the entire downlink subframe  depending on the method used to separate the transmissions on the access and relay links."" or delete the defintion. This belongs in the subframe description. "" or delete definition.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-37,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,36,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.53,50,Normative requirements in a definition.,,Yes,"Delete everything following ""(BSs)"".",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-36,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,35,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.52,44,Normative requirements in a defintion again. This is describing a mode of operation not a term.,,Yes,Delete definiton and move to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14355000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-35,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,34,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.51,42,Most of this is normative text whcih does not belong in clause 3.,,Yes,"change to ""The signal level used for initiating an action"".",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-34,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,33,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.48,31,DC Subcarrier: This contains normative text  that also seems to conflcit with 8.4.2.2 which suggests it is not transmitted at all.,,Yes,Delete the defintion. It belongs in the normative clause defining each type of sub-carrier and how it is used.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-33,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,32,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.45,13,"The definition contains normative text. Technnicallky incorrect text.  Lots of normative text. It is almost ALL normative text. The only part that belongs in clause 3 is ""connection identifier (CID): identifier assigned to a connection"" and that is obvious enough you don't need to define it in clause 3.",,Yes,"Change to: ""connection identifier (CID): identifier assigned to a connection""  or delete definition. Move everything else to appropriate normative clauses. Delete the NOTE.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-32,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,31,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.44,7,More stuff that doesn't belong in clause 3.,,Yes,"Delete "" Connections are identified by a connection identifier (CID). The MAC defines two kinds of connections: management connections and transport connections. See also: connection identifier (CID). ""
or delete the definition from clause 3",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-31,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,30,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.43,3,"Seriously? Redefining ""concatenation"" can lead to nothing good. DO NOT redefine English words.  Also, this is a technically incorrect word for what you're describing, which is aggregation (concatenation is a means to achieve aggregation).",,Yes,Delete definition and review EVERY  PLACE IT IS USED to ensure no ambiguioty or technical errors are introduced by using the term in some way that doesn't agree with the Websters definition.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-30,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,29,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,16,3.42,1,"This is a repition of ""coexistence community"" and also is redefining a common english word neither of which would be a good idea.",,Yes,Delete definition.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-29,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,28,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.41,62,"More normative requirements in the definition.The parts that make up a MAC frame should be described where the MAC frame is described in normative text.  Putting the names of fields in clasue 3 as ""definitions"" is wrong.",,Yes,Delete at least 'The operation of non-Master systems during these subframes may require limitations on the transmit power.' or just delete the definition.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-28,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,27,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.39,50,This contains normative requiremnets.,,Yes,"Delete ""The range of CSIN is from 0 to 3 while 0-3 is referring to OCSI1/OCSI2/OCSI3/ICSI respectively. "" and ensure this is proprely stated in a normative clause.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-27,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,26,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.38,44,non-definition information in definition.,,Yes,"delete "" This technique uses power keyed energy symbols and RSSI detection by a BS to contact its coexistence neighbor BS through one or more coexistence neighbor SSs in the common coverage area.  """,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-26,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,25,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.36,36,non-definition information in definition.,,Yes,"Delete "" using communication over-the-air or back-haul. Messages for inter-system communication over-the-air and primitives for communication over the backhaul are provided.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14354000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-25,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,24,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.35,31,"Technical requirements and behaviors that do not belong in clause 3, This is defining what the thing that the term refers to is used for, does, and perhaps its reason for being, none of which belong in clause 3.",,Yes,"delete ""It is used for broadcasting system's main radio parameters to other systems in its Coexistence Community using always the same predefined PHY parameters.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-24,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,23,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.33,24,Another inproper definition (more of the same).,,Yes,"Change to: ""A pre-defined sequence of IEEE 802.16 DL and UL subframes that is used for facilitating coexistence between systems"" or delete from clause 3 if this is already stated in normative text.'",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-23,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,22,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.32,18,More extraneous information in a defition.,,Yes,"Change to: ""A logical channel composed of a periodic sequence of time slots allocated for coexistence activity""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353700023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-22,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,21,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.31,14,"""is composed of"" is not appropriate in a definition as this describes a techninical requirement.  The ""coexistence community"" is a collection of systems that are coexisting"" would be a correct defintion but also obvious and so a definition in clasue 3 is unncessisary.",,Yes,Fix or delete,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353600023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-21,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,20,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.28,1,"Defintion states normative requirements and applicability of the term, not a valid definition. A clue is when you have ""applicable to"" or other quallifying terms in a definition.  Other cluse are words like ""generating"", ""generate""  , ""dictates"" and such words that describe actions (behaviors) - all are NORMATIVE.",,Yes,"Delete defintion, move to appropriate normative clause(s)",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353500023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-20,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,19,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,14,3.26,57,"This doesn't belong in clause 3 as it is not a definition.   My best guess is you mean ""a system that transmits data in short uneven intervals"" which seems to follow the common defintion of ""bursty"" and ""system"" but I am only guessing (and it is not a good thing for a standard to leave us to guessing, which seldom leads to good interoperability decisions).  This information probably belongs where the term first used.  Both the words ""bursty"" and ""system"" are obvious from the english words, but what may be relevant is that somewhere you describe considerations of the effects of services not defined in this standard? (which sounds like coexistence?).",,Yes,Delete definition and figure out where the information belongs.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353400023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-19,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,18,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,14,3.25,52,Contains requirements of the thing being defined which belong in a normative clause.  What a profile can contain is inappropriate in clause 3 (and is specified somewhere else?).,,Yes,"Delete  ""Each profile contains parameters such as modulation type, forward error correction (FEC) type, preamble length, guard times, etc.  "" ( everything but the first sentence in other words).",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353300023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-18,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,17,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,14,3.24,44,"This is wrong in a lot of ways. It is mostly nomative technical specifications of the connection, is a confusing use of broaddcast (seems to be talking about something that should be called a ""management connection"" if anything), and then contains a defintion for another term, ""Fragmentable Broadcast Connection"" which, if there really is such a thing, is a very scary concept!  NOTE: I can find several uses for or ""broadcast connetction"" but nowhere do I find the requirements for how one is formed.  Very difficult to understand if this is consistent use of ""broadcast"" or if you're redefining what that means too.",,Yes,"Delete and figure out what, if any of this information, belongs in normative text.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353200023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-17,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,16,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,14,3.19,17,"This contains (nomative) technical specifications for timing, not a defintion.  Stop after ""A gap between the last sample of the uplink (UL) burst and the first sample of the subsequent downlink (DL) burst.""",,Yes,"elete ""at the antenna port of the BS in a time division duplex (TDD) transceiver. This gap allows time for the BS to switch from receive (Rx) to transmit (Tx) mode. During this gap, the BS is not transmitting modulated data but simply allowing the BS transmitter carrier to ramp up and the Tx/Rx antenna switch to actuate. Not applicable for frequency division duplex (FDD) systems.""
move to appropriate normative clause.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353100023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-16,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,15,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,14,3.16,1,what is in scope or out of scope of the standard is not a definition.,,Yes,"Change to ""A communication mechanism by which two or more base stations (BSs) communicate
to each other or other networks. """,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14353000023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-15,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,14,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.9,36,Incorrect defintition.  Mostly cointains information on how adaptive modulation is used.,,Yes,"Change to  ""ability to communicate using multiple burst profiles""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14352900023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-14,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,13,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.8,32,"TMI in a definition. This borederlines on obvious, but in any event, a definition does not contain requiriments, rational for wy you might use an AAS, or anything other than a definition of the term.",,Yes,"Delete ""to adjust to noise environment, interference and
multipath.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14352800023, 7-May-2012 21:43:47 EDT,r03-13,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,12,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.6,25,"""can be"" is not appropriate in a definition.",,Yes,"Change to ""A station that provides a point of access into the network for an for an MS or RS such as a base station (BS), relay station (RS), or multihop relay BS (MR-BS).",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14352700023, 7-May-2012 21:29:13 EDT,r03-12,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,11,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.7,56,"Explanitive text in definition; awkward, technically incorrect language.",,Yes,"Change to:
""An number identifying a particular subcarrier in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) or orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) signal relative to the subcarrier index""
related to its subcarrier index. Frequency offset indices may be positive or negative.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14351600023, 7-May-2012 16:44:49 EDT,r03-11,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,10,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,23,3.14,19,"Contains normative text. ""Shall"" was a clue.  Also use of ""specific"" in this context is meaningless.",,Yes,"Change to ""A system that operates during the Slave subframe"" or delete from clause 3.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14351500023, 7-May-2012 16:40:19 EDT,r03-10,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,9,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,22,3.13,41,"""The SAID is unique within MS.
The uniqueness of this identifier shall be guaranteed by {MS MAC Address, SAID} pair."" is pretty obviously stating normative requirements. Normative requiremenst do not belong in definitions in clause 3.",,Yes,"Delete ""The SAID is unique within MS.
The uniqueness of this identifier shall be guaranteed by {MS MAC Address, SAID} pair.""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14351400023, 7-May-2012 16:35:49 EDT,r03-9,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,8,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,,3.11,,"Isn't a definition.  It's a cross reference.
If you need to point where the term comes from do so in the text the first place it is used.",,Yes,"Delete from clause 3.
Delete note.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14351300023, 7-May-2012 16:32: 5 EDT,r03-8,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,7,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,19,3.1,59,"""Paging controller is a unit that belongs to the idle mode services in the NCMS."" is not a definition of the term - it tells me where it belongs but not what it is.

""The paging controller retains the MS state and operational parameters and/or administers paging activity for
the MS while in idle mode."" is not a definition, but sounds like a normative requirement for a Paging Controller.",,Yes,"Delete from Clause 3.  If the characteristics of a paging controller are important to the implementation of the standards, move to appropriate normative clause(s).",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14351200023, 7-May-2012 16:26:13 EDT,r03-7,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,6,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,17,3.6,12,extra information in a definition,,Yes,"change to: "" A medium access control layer (MAC) message that defines burst start times on the downlink (DL).""",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14351000023, 7-May-2012 15:41:30 EDT,r03-6,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,5,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.4,5,"The definition conflicts with the definition of cognitive radio in other approved 802 standards. It also contains requiremetns, and other information that does not belong in a definition.",,Yes,Delete definition and move normative requirements for cognitive monitoring and adaptation to appropriate normative clauses.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14350900023, 7-May-2012 15:35:19 EDT,r03-5,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,4,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,15,3.3,11,"do not redefine ""coexistence"". English words should be used in accordance with their definitions in the latest edition of Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.",,Yes,Delete definition,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14350700023, 7-May-2012 14:24:10 EDT,r03-4,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,3,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,14,3.2,25,"This contains contains (nomative) technical specifications for timing, not a defintion.",,Yes,Delete and move to appropriate normative clause.,Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14314500023,26-Apr-2012 15:57:17 EDT,r03-3,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,2,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3,1,"Many definitions still contain information that doesn't belong in definitions:  Thank you for fixing some of the incorrect defitions per prior ballot comments. Howeve rin the previosu comments I asked ALL comments be corrected. Definitions should not contain normative requirements, must be concise and self contained. 802.16 must follow the IEEE-SA Standard Style as must every other working group. Because many of these definitions contain what appear to be normative requirements not stated in, and/or not consistent with, appropriate normative clauses, the result is technically incorrect.   I pointed this out in comments on the original ballot to correct ALL the definitions and ensure normative requirements are in normative clauses and the standard conforms to the IEEE-SA Standard Style manual There are still many incorrect definitions which state normative requirements. All the following are in scope of a recirculation because this text SHOULD HAVE CHANGED as a result of prior comments. Refer to 11.6.3 of the 2012 IEEE-SA STYLE MANUAL for specifics.",,Yes,"Review and correct ALL defintions that contain extraneous information or normative descriptions.  The following defintions have problems, contain normative text, are redundant, redefine english words, or otherwise are not correctly formed:
3.19 3.20 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.28 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.35 3.36 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.15 3.51 3.52 3.53 3.54 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.61 3.62 3.64 3.66 3.68 3.69 3.71 3.72 3.73 3.75 3.76 3.77 3.78 3.82 3.83 3.84 3.88 3.89 3.96 3.97 3.98 3.99 3.100 3.102  3.103 3.104 3.105 3.106 3.109  3.110 3.111 3.113  3.114 3.115 3.117 3.118 3.119 3.121 3.123 3.124 3.127 3.129 3.130 3.132 3.133 3.134 3.136 3.138 3.140 3.142 3.143 3.144 3.146 3.148 3.149 3.153 3.154 3.156 3.157 3.158 3.161 3.164 3.165 3.171",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14314400023,26-Apr-2012 14: 3:18 EDT,r03-2,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,1,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,13,3,1,"General on Clause 3: There are many defintions that still contain normative requirements and other extraneious information, explanation and other information that is nto appropriate to clause 3. Many are technically wrong, and mis-state normative requiremetns as informative, thus this is a TECHNICAL problem with the standard. This standard does not conform to the requiremetns for an IEEE-SA standard as stated in the 2012 IEEE Standards Style Manual (or previous versions).  It thus is not ready for publication in it's current form.",,Yes,"Correct all the defintions that contain extraneous information so that definitions in clause 3 do not contain behaivors, descriptions of how the thing is used, limitatiosn on it's use, or other technical characteristics of the things being defined. Ensure all such inoromation is moved to or already contained in appropriate normative clauses.",Rejected,"This comment is rejected as out of scope of the recirculation. Per Subclause 5.4.3.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, 'Once the proposed standard has achieved 75% approval, comments in subsequent ballots shall be based only on the changed portions of the balloted proposed standard, portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes, or portions of the balloted proposed standard that are the subject of unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. If comments are not based on the above criteria, the comments may be deemed out-of-scope of the recirculation. Such comments need not be addressed in the current standards balloting process and may be considered for a future revision of the standard.' Following Recirculation #2, the approval threshold of the ballot stood at 100%. Therefore, there were no unresolved comments associated with Do Not Approve votes. Therefore, valid comments in Recirculation #2 would be valid only to the extent that they were based on changed portions of the balloted proposed standard or portions of the balloted proposed standard affected by the changes. This comment addresses a subclause that was not changed in the transition from D5 to D6. [Note: D6 made changes to the following subclauses in Clause 3: 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14308000023,26-Apr-2012 11:19:45 EDT,r03-1,"Turner, Michelle",,,Editorial Coordination Coordination,1,,,,Editorial,0,0,0,This draft meets all editorial requirements,,Yes,,Accepted,,,,