[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

stds-802-16: proceeding with coexistence specification

[Notice: It is the policy of 802.16 to treat messages posted here as non-confidential.]

[I've revised the subject line to reflect the subject. The thread I'm
replying to is

Steve Farrell wrote:

>2. Coexistence With Existing Equipment:
>With regard to Marianna's comments about coexistance prior to system
>requirements, I am in full agreement.  I recall that on numerous occassions,
>Roger was asked by various members for us to consider coexistance first.  He
>rejected those numerous plees outright.  I think that this issue needs
>revisiting.  Perhaps we need to put this issue to a vote.

The issue of proceeding with a coexistence specification will be on the
agenda for a vote as soon as the Coexistence Task Group can come up with a
proposal to vote on. I hope that will be on May 12. I don't see an
opportunity to do it any sooner.

Since January, people have argued that coexistence is a priority. I have
encouraged them to proceed with a coexistence specification as soon as
possible. The process begins with a PAR. I scheduled time at the March
meeting for the Coexistence Task Group to move the process along, and I
have said that the top item on the agenda for the Boulder meeting is to
write a PAR on coexistence so that we can get it approved at the next 802
Plenary Meeting. I want this process to proceed quickly, and I don't know
anyone who doesn't.

I think that our communications will be most effective if all of us make
specific recommendations. If you feel that coexistence is proceeding too
slowly, then make a recommendation as to how we can speed it up. Better
yet, contribute specific text that you'd like to see in the PAR. Now that
we have a document submission process, we have a template to follow.

Please bear in mind that we are a contribution-driven organization.
Contributions are specific suggestions backed up by documentation. I think
this kind of communication will help identify the key decisions we need to
make. For instance, the top priority of some people is that we move forward
quickly on coexistence. A high priority of others is that we hold fewer
meetings. Sometimes these preferences collide. That's why, instead of
saying that we should hold fewer meetings, it's better if people suggest a
specific meeting they would like to cancel. If that meeting is one that's
intended to move the coexistence project forward, then we may find a
conflict with those that are anxious to push coexistence. If that happens,
we can try to resolve the conflict. But we can't get to that point unless
we IDENTIFY the conflict. That's why it's so important to be specific.


Dr. Roger B. Marks  <mailto:marks@nist.gov>
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
National Wireless Electronic Systems Testbed (N-WEST) <http://nwest.nist.gov>
National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO
phone: 1-303-497-3037  fax: 1-303-497-7828