RE: stds-802-16-tg4: draft letter to ETSI BRAN
Roger,
As one who was involved in drafting the text cited in your proposed response to
ETSI BRAN, I can confirm that your conclusion correctly represents the drafting
committee's intent, which was in turn affirmed by the TG4 community:
(Roger wrote) As for your comment that we seek clarification of ETSI's
definition of nomadic devices, we are not limited by the 802 position, but we
are still limited by the fact that it's not in TG4's version. My personal view
is that it would be a mistake to ask this as an open question; we would be
better off stating our _own_ view on the matter and asking if ETSI agrees. At
this time, we don't _have_ an official view of our own. If TG4 wants to develop
such a view, they should have a look at the published dictionaries. I recommend
ITU-R F.1399 "Vocabulary of Terms for Wireless Access". Jose Costa provided us
with a draft revision approved by ITU-R Study Group 9 (see IEEE 802.16l-00/40
<http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/80216l-00_40.pdf>).
In a previous e-mail to the reflector, Jori has neatly captured the rationale
(see below). I also note that the ITU-R document you cite was consulted when we
drafted this response. At that time, Peter Murray, an 802.11 representative who
worked with us in creating this draft, advised us of the approach taken by ETSI
in defining whether FWA devices can be considered "nomadic", which is consistent
with Jori's comment:
(Jori wrote) ETSI doesn't do this kind of rating. It's up to every
national body to decide whether FWA goes under ITU-R term nomadic. ITU-R defines
the term in a way that FWA devices easily can be considered nomadic.
In summary, the draft you circulated captures the intent of the 802 Regulatory
committee, and it's endorsement by the TG4 community.
Regards,
John Liebetreu
IEEE 802.16 TG4 PHY Chair