Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g PARS
DJ,
I agree with Avi that your reaction is extreme in suggesting the EC to close down 802.20.
The fact that they are trying to get together against a mutual "enemy" is a kind of behaviour that does not carry any dignity to its owner. But as Avi stated is not a good enough reason to act against a (sort of) live PAR.
I agree with the group's letter that sends replies to 802.20's addressed issues.
Regards
Ofer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Avi Freedman
Sent: 15 July, 2004 3:38 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g PARS
DJ,
I really don't believe you are trying to turn the Excutive Commitee into an
Execution Committee. It seems to me that by suggesting to stop the 802.20
PAR you are doing the same thing that you suggest others not to do - namely
interfere with the work of other WG's in the most destructive way. Asking to
close an existing PAR is, as far as I know, unprecedented request, and your
(fully justified) anger with them directing the chair not ot approve our
(your) 802.16g PAR is not a good enough reason for that. WG has known to be
closed in the past, but (again, as far as I know) of their own decision,. I
beleive 802.20 is going on the same path and there is no need to help it
along.
But the cases of the 802.16e PAR and the 802.18SG PAR are totally different.
The 802.18 SG PAR is being started the wrong way. By directing our chair to
vote against it we are just demonstrating this fact. It is not directed
against the excellent work 802.18 is doing in the Regulatory domain, but
rather against the bad work they are starting to do tryting to spawn a new
WG without letting the others know about it, without a tutorial and without
putting it on the agenda in time. The fact is that they do NOT have a
distinct identity, They are trying to re-write a 802.16 standard within a
802.16 band. When we learn more about it we might be convinced that an
independent PAR is warranted but till then I believe the PAR should wait. I
have seen Roger's letter, and I fully agree with it.
As for the IEEE 802.16e, our group is trying to change the PAR and include
modes that are imcompatible to our won standard. It so happened that 802.20
has also indicated it. So, as you see in this case good can also come out of
evil.
Avi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnston, Dj" <dj.johnston@INTEL.COM>
To: <STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g PARS
> I think there is something of a lesson to be learned here, regarding
> what is appropriate for a WG to do, in the context of the current PAR
> activity in 802.16 and 802.18.
>
> We have heared comment suggesting that the 802.18SG1 proposal for an
> 802.22 WG is a violation of procedure and overlaps with the scope of
> 802.16 heavily and so we should take drastic measures such as directing
> the chair to vote against the PAR.
>
> At the same time, 802.20 have argued in the rational in the powerpoint
> below, that 802.16e fails to have distinct identity from their PAR and
> have gone ahead and directed their chair to vote against it. For good
> measure, they've done the same to the .16g PAR, by trying (erroneously I
> feel) to argue that it is tied to the .16e scope.
>
> I and I assume the majority of .16, based on today's voting, think that
> what we are doing with the .16e PAR is reasonable and is to some extent
> a compromise and to some extent a harmonization of views and wills
> within .16. Accordingly I find 802.20's actions to be totally
> unwarranted and the sort of intrusive and unreasonable behaviour that we
> should not tolerate in IEEE 802.
>
> So how does this make us look if we turn around and direct our chair to
> vote against the 802.22 PAR, rather requiring him to justify his
> position? I suggest that it puts us in the same position with respect to
> 802.18SG1 as 802.20 are with respect to us.
>
> My personal conviction is that 802.18 actually have our better interests
> at heart. They have worked consistently to improve the regulatory
> environment we work within and have served us well with provision of the
> spectrum and improvement of spectrum regulations that are the lifeblood
> of IEEE 802 wireless groups. This current 802.22 proposal seen in the
> light of the constraints 802.18SG1 are working within, trying to achieve
> a compromise acceptable to broadcasters, the IEEE, equipment
> manufacturers, operators and the FCC on access to TV bands makes some
> sense. The apparently informal nature of the process followed in the
> submission of the 802.22 PAR is consisent with the somewhat informal
> nature of 802.18, consistent with its size. We are judging them harshly
> on these matters.
>
> Therefore I am in favour of the 802.16 response that emphasised
> improving our understanding of the proposal, and reject the notion that
> we simply reject the proposal. I think there is much to be learned about
> what is driving these PAR proposals that will help us understand the
> nature and suitability of the proposal.
>
> We are in a situation where we can take a more principled position and
> direct our ire in the direction of those who are seeking to block our
> progress, rather than those who actually are delivering the spectrum
> goods.
>
> Accordingly I think that directing the 802.16 chair to request a
> withdrawl of the 802.20 PAR at the EC is a far more reasonable action
> than directing him to vote against the 802.22 PAR.
>
> I think there is a strong rational for such action, given the net
> negative effect that 802.20 has had on the operation of other groups I
> am familiar with, including 802.16e, the Netman SG, the handover ECSG
> and the EC, compared to their rate of work and their technical output
> that has amounted to nothing to date.
>
> Unless I am pursuaded otherwise in the interim period, I plan to make
> such a motion at the 802.16 closing plenary.
>
> Regards,
> DJ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Forwarded by
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:46 AM
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g PARS
>
>
> The referenced attachment is at
> <http://ieee802.org/secmail/bin00165.bin> -Roger
>
> >All,
> >The 802.20 Working Group passed two Directed Position motions regarding
>
> >the 802.16e and g PARs. Both motions direct the Chair to vote against
> >approving the PARs. Attached are the motions and the associated
> >rationale as discussed and approved by the members.
> >I have also placed a paper copy in your office folders.
> >Regards,
> >Jerry Upton
> >Chair, IEEE 802.20
>