G’day Adrian
I am disappointed at the response from the EC in relation to this recommendation from the IEEE 802.11 WG. I am also disappointed that you did not support the recommendation as IEEE 802.11 WG Chair, although I recognise you have that right.
Let me address the reported objections
- It's plain wrong for 802.11 to attempt to liaise with ITU-R, as IEEE is a sector member. Any communication to ITU-R should be as a sector member through IEEE.
- The recommendation from the WG was explicitly written in a way to leave open the source of the liaison.
- Personally, I see no major issue with the IEEE 802.11 WG sending a note to ITU-R expressing interest in the IMT-2020 activity, without any commitment.
- However, I know some people are sensitive about such things, and so the recommendation left it up to the EC to decide who should send the liaison
- The information being asked for is already within IEEE. Mike Lynch is IEEE's ITU-R representative, acting on behalf of the IEEE BoG. So ask him for the information.
- I doubt the “invitation to participate” is available within the IEEE-SA on the basis that ITU-R has not finalised or sent it yet.
- The idea was to make it clear we were interested so that they sent us the information and an invitation as soon as it was available and so that they started getting used to the idea that IEEE 802 (with at least 802.11) may participate in their process
· The EC will set up a standing committee (as described in more detail in an earlier email of mine) to report on the costs and benefits of different models of engagement in 5G/IMT-2020. We should wait until they have reported, because there is no urgency in the IMT-2020 process.
o It is great that a SC is being set up
o However, the SC needs to ensure it has all the information required to decide what to do.
o Setting up a path for communication early seems like an obvious way to parallelize various processes
· The 802.11 motion was flawed because it didn’t send a specific document to the EC, but invited the EC to create it.
o It was known that the EC was discussing the issue on the Friday afternoon.
o The idea was to give them some flexibility to incorporate the recommendation from the WG with any outcomes from the afternoon discussion.
o Joe provided a template to minimise the work required by the EC
o That is disappointing and reflects a failure by the EC, in that they seem to have prioritised process over outcome
· It was also flawed that “WG recommends” is unclear as to the intent.
o The intent was clear from the motion the related discussion, and supporting documents
o The motion explicitly asked that a liaison be sent to ITU-R WP5D “indicating that IEEE 802.11 is considering participation in the IMT-2020 process”
o The template developed by Joe (as a result of an action assigned) better reflected the detail of the related discussion in that it requested that it “receive or be notified of the availability of the Circular Letter IMT-2020, and any other related information that would aid [802.11] in making a decision regarding whether [IEEE 802.11] should or should not participate and contribute to the IMT-2020 work plan, process, and deliverables”
o This should have been sufficient for the EC to take action
Now I have all that off my chest, we need to move ahead based on what the EC did (and did not do) rather than on what they should have done:
· I have copied Mike Lynch (ITU-R Liaison) for information
o Mike, could you please provide IEEE 802 with a copy of any invitation or other material received by IEEE-SA from ITU-R in relation to IMT-2020?
o Mike, could you also confirm that ITU-R is planning to send an invitation in relation to IMT-2020 to IEEE-SA?
o Mike, could you provide all information that you have in relation to IMT-2020 ASAP so that potential SC participants can get up to speed as fast as possible
· The SC sounds like a great forum to continue consideration of this work
o Am I correct in assuming it starts in March?
And
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Dear 802.11 participants,
During our January session, the WG approved this motion:
– Based on interest expressed during the IEEE 802.11 WNG meeting on 19 January 2016 in the IMT-2020 activity, IEEE 802.11 WG recommends to IEEE 802 EC that a liaison be sent to ITU-R WP5D indicating that IEEE 802.11 is considering participation in the IMT-2020 process.
– Moved: Andrew Myles
– Seconded: Joseph Levy
– Result: 34-5-14 Motion passes
Joseph Levy supplied template text that could be used for the liaison: “Members of [IEEE 802.11] have brought to the attention of [IEEE 802.11] that ITU-R has defined a workplan, timeline, process and deliverables for the future development of IMT, IMT-2020. [802.11] is considering participation in the IMT development process and therefore requests to receive or be notified of the availability of the Circular Letter IMT-2020, and any other related information that would aid [802.11] in making a decision regarding whether [IEEE 802.11] should or should not participate and contribute to the IMT-2020 workplan, process, and deliverables. …”
There was an EC telecon yesterday at which this was discussed. I asked for a straw poll, “The EC approves in principal to send a liaison to ITU-R WP5D “indicating that IEEE 802.11 is considering participation in the IMT-2020 process”. The result was 1,8,7. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against.
The arguments against (as far as I can recall, and I am attempting to summarise a 10-minute discussion):
- It's plain wrong for 802.11 to attempt to liaise with ITU-R, as IEEE is a sector member. Any communication to ITU-R should be as a sector member through IEEE. The information being asked for is already within IEEE. Mike Lynch is IEEE's ITU-R representative, acting on behalf of the IEEE BoG. So ask him for the information.
2. The EC will set up a standing committee (as described in more detail in an earlier email of mine) to report on the costs and benefits of different models of engagement in 5G/IMT-2020. We should wait until they have reported, because there is no urgency in the IMT-2020 process.
3. The 802.11 motion was flawed because it didn’t send a specific document to the EC, but invited the EC to create it. It was also flawed that “WG recommends” is unclear as to the intent.
If 802.11 folks, having seen the above, want to proceed with this liaison, then:
1. The liaison needs to be created ahead of time and approved by the WG.
2. The motion in the WG needs to request not recommend – i.e. be translatable directly into an EC motion.
3. It needs to follow the form of a communication from a sector member and should be agreed in advance with the IEEE’s ITU-R representative.
Please also note that the IEEE-SA is creating a strategic initiative on the topic of 5G, with the intent of coordinating responses to 5G. They would probably also want to take an interest in this topic. WG officers are doing discovery at the moment to determine what that means for us.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +1 (971) 330 6025 (mobile)
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.
If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.