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

RE: stds-802-16: Tentative Agenda for Session #6 (6-9 March 2000)

I just accidentally found out that a day and a half meeting has been
scheduled by some members of the IEEE 802.16 next week in Phoenix to
progress the merging of the current BWA proposals to the IEEE 802.16.
Considering that not all members/participants of the IEEE 802.16 have been
informed or are invited to this meeting,( and as I was told that some of the
invitees are not proposers of the existing 802.16 BWA proposals), could
participants in such selective meetings, and/or the IEEE, and/or IEEE
802.16(that has encouraged such informal process for facilitating the
merging the current IEEE802.16 BWA proposals), be legally liable of being
accused of meeting to reach decisions outside an open forum so as to "stack
the cards" on what gets approved in the formal IEEE 802.16 meetings, and
thus constrain trade by excluding other proposals?

Dr. Demosthenes J. Kostas
Director, Industry Standards
Adaptive Broadband Corporation

3314 Dartmouth Ave
Dallas, TX 75205  USA

tel: 214 520 8411
fax: 214 520 9802

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:marks@boulder.nist.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 12:28 AM
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-802-16: Tentative Agenda for Session #6 (6-9 March

>Now that the number of proposals for 802.16.1 have thinned out to 
>just two, is it not possible to avoid conflict of sub 10 GHz study 
>group meetings with other meetings particularly the 802.16 meetings 
>(PHY and MAC)? My company is interested in sub 10 GHz as well as 
>802.16.1 group and I suspect many members form other companies are. 
>I would appreciate if you could rearrange the schedule to allow all 
>interested parties to attend the 802.16.1 (PHY and MAC) as well as 
>sub 10 GHz meetings.


I sympathize with your concern. It certainly comes into play as we 
firm up the agendas.

On the other hand, there is a lot of work ahead for both projects. 
The Study Group needs to respond to comments on the PAR; this can, 
and should, turn out to be an in-depth discussion. It may take quite 
a long time. The revised PAR is due at 5 pm on Wednesday. Afterwards, 
as long as it has made solid plans for how to proceed (and planned 
for various possible outcomes of the PAR approval vote by the 802 
ExCom), the Group might reasonably adjourn for the week on Wednesday. 
(On the other hand, it could also use Thursday morning to begin 
discussions on its Functional Requirements).

If we run the 802.16.1 PHY and MAC discussions in serial rather than 
in parallel (and I think this is a good idea, except possibly for the 
discussions on performance modeling), we don't have much time to 
waste. Even with two proposals, (or even with only one!) we still 
have a long way to go before we have a standard. While the 
lower-frequency work is vital, we cannot allow it to delay progress 
on our existing projects (both .1 and .2). If it turns out that we 
don't really need the full two and a half days of session time, then 
we might be able to cut back. But first we need to take a close look 
at what's on the agenda.

Another way to potentially reduce the overlap is to make use of 
Monday and Tuesday evening. I've held that in reserve.

While we have some flexibility, the agenda will require some tough 
choices. When the Working Group considers opening up new projects, it 
has to do so with a realistic view of the impact of those projects on 
existing work. Fortunately, our new Study Group has attracted new 
people; this gives us the power to get more things done in parallel 
while using the Working Group structure to keep all of our projects 
complementary to each other.

I encourage the Task Groups and the Study Group to detail their work 
for the week and let us know what it adds up to. I also encourage 
you, and everyone else, to come up with a specific agenda proposal 
that accounts for all of the work that needs to get done.