stds-802-16: 802 SEC Ballot to Approve Response to FCC FNPRM
As noted below, the 802 Executive Committee is running an email
ballot, until July 28, to approve comments to the FCC regarding FNPRM
99-231. Why is this happening? Here is a brief history from my
vantage point:
*An 802.11 ad hoc regulatory committee, chaired by Vic Hayes,
developed a draft position statement in conference calls and in many
hours of editorial and voting meetings last week. A number of 802.16
people attended; David Chauncey, the 802.16 Regulatory Liaison, was
the primary 802.16 contact. The process was not without controversy,
but hard work on the part of the participants let to a unified
position.
*Vic intended to submit the comments as a joint position paper of the
802.11, 802.15, and 802.16 Working Groups and therefore asked each
group to vote. In the Closing Plenary, 802.16 approved it unanimously
(with some discussion of appropriate power levels). 802.15 approved
it only with the deletion of a section on "Elimination of the 30 s
re-evaluation rule". I learned of the 802.15 change just before the
SEC meeting. 802.16 members with whom I consulted believed that this
section was not important to 802.16.
*Unfortunately, 802.11 did not vote on the document at the Closing
Plenary due to some kind of bureaucratic snafu. Without 802.11, the
comments could not be approved as a joint Working Group position
paper.
*The best alternative I could see was to adopt the document as an
IEEE 802 position statement instead of a Working Group position
statement. I moved to do so, and Vic seconded. The 802.15 chair
expressed support, but the 802.11 chair indicated he would abstain
since he didn't have a voted Working Group position. Without 802.11
support, the SEC was unwilling to vote approval.
*As a means of solving the problem, we agreed to modify the motion to
call for a 14-day SEC email ballot. This would give 802.11 time to
conduct an informal membership poll. The agreement was that any WG
polls would be concluded by July 25, three days before the close of
the ballot.
*Since we have time, I'd like to invite you to read the document
under consideration:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/01/80216-01_38.pdf
I welcome your comments. Since 802.16 has already approved the
document, I don't feel I can now vote against it on technical
grounds. However, I can pass along editorial comments; given the
rush, I imagine that the editorial level is far from perfect.
*If all goes well, the SEC will approve a new version with only
editorial improvements. It's possible that 802.11 will come back with
recommended changes that make the result less acceptable to us. I
don't think that will happen; after all, the work was carefully
hammered out by an ad hoc committee in which 802.11 was well
represented.
Feel free to send me any comments by July 25.
Regards,
Roger
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/15JULY2001
>Issue date: 15Jul2001Closing Date: 28Jul2001
>Moved By: Roger Marks
>Second By: Vic Hayes
>Move: to submit document RR-01-012 as Comments to FNPRM 99-231. Objects
>between square brackets are subject to change to reflect the reality.
>
>Document RR-01-012 r0 contains the items between square brackets, worked out
>according to the actions taken in the WGs and the SEC. It also has taken the
>effect of the dot15 amendment into consideration. Revision marks can be made
>visible.This is the version that will be submitted by Vic Hayes and I (note
>both Vic and I will send the document together - I will add my coordinates).
>
>The attached zip file contains document 11-01-391 r7. This is the version
>according to the motion to amend made in dot 15
>
>Wireless working group Chairs are expected to poll their groups on these
>comments within 10 days.
>
> <<SEC-blt.zip>>
>---------------
>Vic Hayes
>Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
>Zadelstede 1-10
>3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 2)
>FAX: +31 30 609 7498
>e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
>http://www.orinocowireless.com/