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
14337800023, 2-May-2012 16:41:31 EDT,r03-28,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,28,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,32,6.2.1.1.1,57,"Stating requirements outside the scope of this standard: ""The 24-bit Operator ID shall be assigned as an IEEE 802.16 Operator ID by the IEEE Registration Authority1). The IEEE Registration Authority shall be the sole authorized number space administrator for this function.""
This standard nor 802 may prescribe requirements on the RAC We may specify that only RAC assigned OUIs may be used in an 802.16 address.",,Yes,"Change to:
Each ABS shall have a 48-bit Advanced Base Station ID (ABSID or ABS MAC address or ABS MAC ID). The ABSID is a 48-bit long field identifying the ABS. The least significant 24 bits of the ABSID shall be programmable. The most significant 24 bits shall contain the Operator ID. The Operator ID is a network management
hook that is sent with the S-SFH SP2 message (see Table 183, MSB of 48 bit ABS MAC ID) for handling edge-of-sector and edge-of-cell situations. The 24-bit Operator ID field shall contain an IEEE 802.16 Operator ID value assigned by
 IEEE Registration Authority1. The IEEE Registration Authority is the sole
authorized number space administrator for this function.",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 no changes to subclause 6.2.1.1.1.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14337700023, 2-May-2012 18:34:13 EDT,r03-27,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,27,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,20,5.2.2,37,"""but care shall be taken"" states a normative requirement that can not be verified. Unless there is a normative description of what ""care"" means in this context, in which case a cross reference would be helpful.",,Yes,"Complete missing specification of normative requirement for ""taking care' during clasification,",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 no changes to Clause 5.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14337600023, 2-May-2012 18:22:13 EDT,r03-26,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,26,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,63,6.2.3,26,"Sorry, type in previous comment. Meant through Table 109.
Use the same normative style throughout all field descriptions,",,Yes,see comment,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 no changes to the ""normative style"" of the table cited in the comment.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14337500023, 2-May-2012 18:19:15 EDT,r03-25,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,25,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,63,6.2.3,26,"Starting with Table 30 and subsequentlly through table 103 including all of the message field description tables:
In the condition column, sometimes the condition is stated with ""shall"" and othertimes not. I don't really think ""shall"" is necessary in this context, but in any event consistent style makes it easier to read as a reader MIGHT think there is a difference when ""shall"" is used and when it is not used (if there is a difference meant, than the text is unclear as I missedit).",,Yes,Be consistent.,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 no changes to the ""normative style"" of the table cited in the comment.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14337400023, 2-May-2012 18:15: 0 EDT,r03-24,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,24,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,0,6,0,Draft organixzation exceeds the 5 levels allowed by the IEEE-SA style manual.,,Yes,Fix,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 no changes relevant to the comment.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14337300023, 2-May-2012 18:11:48 EDT,r03-23,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,23,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,67,6.2.3.1,13,"States ""optional"" without a specific condition. It makes me wonder if there is a missing condition.  Wondering is almost as bad as guessing, which is sliglty worse than assuming.",,Yes,Pre-empt speculation and include th rest of the condition.,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 no changes to ""AMS Mobility Information"" entry addressed in comment.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14337200023, 2-May-2012 18: 5:58 EDT,r03-22,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,22,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,63,6.2.3.1,61,"""Shall always be present"" in the condition field causes me to question now how to interpret the field descriptions that do not have any condition listed. I had, up to now, thought that lack of a condition meant that the field was always present (due in large part to it being stated as such in 6.2.3 which is where I must've gone wrong).",,Yes,Remove the extraneous text which is repeating a normative requirement.,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 no changes to ""CMAC indicator"" entry addressed in comment.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14319200023,26-Apr-2012 19:34: 3 EDT,r03-21,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,21,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,13,3.48,63,extra and normative text in definition,,No,"delete ""and is equal to an integer number of AAI subframes. The default TTI is 1 AAI subframe""",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14319100023,26-Apr-2012 19:32:42 EDT,r03-20,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,20,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.46,55,Contains normative text.,,No,"delete ""A superframe is comprised of four frames.""",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14319000023,26-Apr-2012 19:30:40 EDT,r03-19,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,19,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.42,36,"Extra information about what it includes that probably belongs in a normative clause. Also, doesn't actualy define what a secondary carrier is, though it implies that it is other than the primary.",,No,"""An OFDMA carrier, other than the primary carrier, that an AMS may use to exchange traffic with an ABS"" ???",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318900023,26-Apr-2012 19:30:38 EDT,r03-18,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,18,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.42,36,"Extra information about what it includes that probably belongs in a normative clause. Also, doesn't actualy define what a secondary carrier is, though it implies that it is other than the primary.",,No,"""An OFDMA carrier, other than the primary carrier, that an AMS may use to exchange traffic with an ABS"" ???",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318800023,26-Apr-2012 19:30:36 EDT,r03-17,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,17,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.42,36,"Extra information about what it includes that probably belongs in a normative clause. Also, doesn't actualy define what a secondary carrier is, though it implies that it is other than the primary.",,No,"""An OFDMA carrier, other than the primary carrier, that an AMS may use to exchange traffic with an ABS"" ???",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318700023,26-Apr-2012 19:30:35 EDT,r03-16,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,16,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.42,36,"Extra information about what it includes that probably belongs in a normative clause. Also, doesn't actualy define what a secondary carrier is, though it implies that it is other than the primary.",,No,"""An OFDMA carrier, other than the primary carrier, that an AMS may use to exchange traffic with an ABS"" ???",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318600023,26-Apr-2012 19:26:51 EDT,r03-15,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,15,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,13,3.36,15,"More normative text in definition. This one even has a bloody ""SHALL"" in it.",,No,"Delete ""Further..."" and everythign after.  Alternately delete the 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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318500023,26-Apr-2012 19:24:46 EDT,r03-14,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,14,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,13,3.35,11,Contains normative text. The size of a PRU is normative.,,No,"move normative text to normative claues, change defintion to ""The basic resource allocation unit""",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318400023,26-Apr-2012 19:21:53 EDT,r03-13,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,13,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,13,3.32,1,"Just the definition please. 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.",,No,"delete ""The Operator ID is contained in the
Advanced Base Station ID (ABSID).""",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318300023,26-Apr-2012 19:20:10 EDT,r03-12,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,12,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,12,3.29,55,"Definition is unclear.  It starts out defining something else (multimode MS/AMS), and then describes behavior. Defintions ""shall not contain any other information, such as requirements or elaborative text""",,No,"Change to ""A multi radio MS/AMS can simultaneous transmit and receive on multiple radios."" (i.e. delete everythign else).",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318200023,26-Apr-2012 19:16:24 EDT,r03-11,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,11,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,12,3.23,36,"I *think* a maco ABS is an ABS directly connected to the service provider network. I'm guessing, as it might ne a high power ABS or it might have to be high power and directly connected to a service provider network...whcih sounds like a normative requirement.",,No,Clarify defintion  using appropriate language 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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14318100023,26-Apr-2012 19:13:33 EDT,r03-10,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,10,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,12,3.2,24,"Does not define ""horizontal encoding"", rather seems to be desribing a field of or other functional element that is used for signalling presence of multiple MIMO layers,,",,No,"Delete defintion and move normative text to the proper 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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14317200023,26-Apr-2012 19:11: 8 EDT,r03-9,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,9,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,12,3.19,19,"This isn't a term definitionm, it is a field descriptoin.",,No,Delete from clause 3 and Move field description 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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14317100023,26-Apr-2012 19: 9:44 EDT,r03-8,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,8,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,12,3.17,11,"Way TMI and not enough definition: what IS a Fento ABS? Definition shouldn't say who istalls it, how much power it uses, who connects it, what color it is, how much it weights or how typical it might be.  Is it a low poiwer ABS? Is it something else?",,No,"change to ""low power ABS"" or delete definition, and move all this useful explanative text  to appropriate infomrative 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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14317000023,26-Apr-2012 19: 5:52 EDT,r03-7,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,7,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Editorial,12,3.16,6,Extra information in definition,,No,"delete ""A dual radio MS/AMS can simultaneous transmit and receive on both radios. A dual radio
MS/AMS may behave as a single radio MS by operating in single radio 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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14315300023,26-Apr-2012 19: 2:48 EDT,r03-6,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,6,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,Technical,11,3.13,55,"Redundant defintion.  ""Syn: localized resource unit"" is a clue that we already have a term for the same purpose.  Additinally, after reading it several times I still have no idea what the sentence means, so it fails the ""Each definition should be a brief, self-contained description of the term""",,No,delete defintion.,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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14315100023,26-Apr-2012 18:55:51 EDT,r03-5,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,5,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,11,3.11,48,"Normative text in definition, specifying restrictions or requiremetns which are not verifiable externally,",,No,"delete ""CSG-Open Femto ABS will provide service to such AMSs as long as the QoS of AMSs in its CSG(s) is not
compromised.""",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14314900023,26-Apr-2012 18:54: 0 EDT,r03-4,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,4,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,11,3.1,41,Normative text in defintion,,No,"delete ""AMSs that are not the members of the CSG(s) should not try to access CSG-Closed
Femto ABSs.""",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14314800023,26-Apr-2012 18:52:34 EDT,r03-3,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,3,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,11,3.5,24,Normative text in defintion.,,No,"Delete ""ARS-TTG 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 ARS.""",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14314700023,26-Apr-2012 18:51:41 EDT,r03-2,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,2,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,11,3.4,19,Normative information in definition.,,No,"Delete ""ARS-RTG 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 ARS.""",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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,
14314600023,26-Apr-2012 18:50: 5 EDT,r03-1,"Rolfe, Benjamin",,,Individual,1,User,Disapprove,Blind Creek Associates,General,11,3,2,"IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms. has been superceeded according to the 2012 IEEE-SA Style Manual by The Definitions Database",,No,Update reference.,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 no changes to Clause 3.] The commenter is encouraged to submit these comments during future ballot activities amending the standard.",,,