Subject: [16NG] approving the ps-goals document

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:53:32 +0200

With revision -04, we are close to approving this draft in the IESG.
Here are the current RFC Editor notes that we'd need to resolve
remaining Comments and Discusses. The only substantive change is adding
a manageability goal that Dan Romascanu asked for in his Discuss. Let me
know in the next day or two if there's anything alarming in these changes.

----

  In Section 1, please change the first occurrence of "BS" to
  "Base Station (BS)". Similarly, change the first occurrence
  of "SS" to "Subscriber Station (SS)".

  Also in Section 1, please change "within the current 16ng WG scope"
  to "within the current scope of IETF efforts".

  In Section 4,1, please change "within the scope of 16ng" to
  "within the scope of ongoing IETF work".

  In Section 4.1, please change "not to wake up sleep/idle 
  [IEEE802.16e] SSs" to "SSs which are in the sleep/idle mode 
  [IEEE802.16e]".

  In Section 4.3, please change "the problem of waking up the 
  sleep/idle [IEEE802.16e] SSs" to "the problem of waking up SSs 
  which are in sleep/idle mode [IEEE802.16e]".

  In Section 4.4, please add the following to the end:

    Goal #6. Define management requirements and specifically the
    interfaces and specific management model (objects) for IP
    over 802.16.

  In Section 7, please change "16ng WG" to "IETF 16ng Working Group".

  In Section 7, please change as follows:

  OLD:
    the section 4, "Overview of the IEEE 802.16-2006 MAC layer"
  NEW:
    the section 3, "Overview of the IEEE 802.16 MAC layer"

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng

---

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:04:43 +0900

One more changes here is:

There are two "IETF IP protocols" in this document. Obviously, IP
stands for Internet Protocol. It seems to be a weird expression.
Suggestion is "IETF protocols or IETF IP"...but I don't have a strong
opinion on that if IETF folks are ok for this expression as usual.

Daniel Park

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:18:41 +0200

Thanks. I found one of these expressions in the abstract, changed as
follows:

  In the Abstract, please change "running the IETF IP protocols
  over IEEE 802.16" to "running IP over 802.16".

Was there more to change?

Jari

---

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:29:33 +0900

One more change in Introduction

  "This document provides the feasible IP Subnet model for each IP CS
   and Ethernet CS and specifies the problems in running IP protocols
   for each case."

CHANGE TO:

  "This document provides the feasible IP Subnet model for each IP CS
   and Ethernet CS and specifies the problems in running IP for each case."

Daniel Park