[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 am sorry but I am not a legal person and that is why I asked the question
to Roger.
Many times people with good intentions do bad and/or illegal things.
Regards
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: Durand, Roger [mailto:rdurand@cabletron.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 12:13 PM
To: 'Kostas, Demos'; 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16: Tentative Agenda for Session #6 (6-9 March
2000)
Demos
Ouch, I need to chime in right away here...
Caution is advised regarding your wording, of legal liability in
regards to constraint of trade. Be sure of your facts. I am not familiar
with this upcoming meeting, but I am not sure it is a conspiracy in
constraint of trade...
A more likely purpose is convergence, it is normal for participants
to merge proposals/contributions. This is not constraint of trade, rather it
is convergence. Indeed this process is encouraged with the intent of
producing the best possible standard, best of breed. Without convergence, is
there any real progress? This convergence in turn should generate either new
contributions or enhance the evolution of previous contributions. These
contributions in turn drive the standards process. Indeed convergence, in
itself, usually (but not always) involves multiple parties with redundant
capability which is contrary to constraint of trade by promoting
competition. Even those who find themselves outside the convergence process
with their specific contributions may still compete by building to the
standard invoking the standards licensing policy, if necessary. A good
standard, is based on no key IP.
Or, perhaps it may be a discussion on the tradeoffs to merge the
future sub 11 GHz with the present 802.16.1 This was openly talked about at
the last interim. Perhaps, I should reiterate... A point was presented as to
the economic advantages of producing one standard instead of two. That a
perception exists by some members that the sub 11 GHz band has an economic
deployment advantage which will drive significant quantities and that this
should be leveraged to make the 802.16.1 more economically feasible (not the
other way around). This is crystal balling an unknown future which is
largely dependant on the serious intent of the different spectrum holders or
systems providers to deploy (beyond a standards bodies purview). Further the
markets these two are trying to address may be significantly different.
Others point out that the 802.16.1 is further ahead (why wait)?
I sincerely do not believe any decisions can be made next week,
maybe a contribution/recommendation may come from this to be taken to the
802.16 body. Which, may generate a round of votes...
The selection/decision process itself must take place in a
previously announced and publicly scheduled meeting for all to attend. As
long as no 802.16 meeting is called to order next week, there is no
exclusion. If such an unannounced, non -public meeting was called to order,
you would have grounds for a "protest" to the executive committee and I
would join you.
Making such a vague statement might be construed as an allegation.
Such an allegation would require proof. Just because people are meeting
somewhere to discuss the developments around 802.16 is not, in itself,
proof. Four people meeting on a street (or anywhere) is not a gang, eight
people do not make a riot.
Sincerely
Roger Durand
Cabletron Systems
CTO Staff, Systems Architect
Tel#(603)337-5170
rdurand@cabletron.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kostas, Demos [mailto:dkostas@adaptivebroadband.com]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 11:45 PM
To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: 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
2000)
>Roger,
>
>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.
>
>Chet
Chet,
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.
Regards,
Roger