stds-802-16: RESEND : Clarification
Roger - Sorry to be
a pain, but I'm having difficulty understanding the current process - where we
are and where we're headed. I would appreciate your clarification before I
return my ballot and comments etc. There are four topics :
a) Letter
Ballot #5
This is in two
parts.
i) Authority to
carry on normal WG activity at the Calgary Interim Meeting. I believed that we
automatically had this under the PARs since we have not yet finalized a Draft
Standard to go to Sponsor Ballot. Why do we need to vote now on this aspect
?
ii) Authority to
(potentially) issue a new Draft and request SEC approval for Sponsor Ballot at /
after the Calgary Plenary. You have already clarified that this does not
preclude other courses of action from the Calgary meeting, so I'm missing
the point of why we need to vote on this one specific possible course of
action.
Since this is really
a "Procedural" Motion which is out for Letter Ballot, should the pass rate be
50%, and Commentary should probably have a (new) Procedural Comment Category
(rather than just editorial or technical).
b) Rejection
of Sponsor Ballot Request
I haven't seen a
report of the actual results and reasons for the SEC rejection of our request,
and what issues / comments the SEC needs to see resolved before we re-submit a
proposal. From the (few) emails which you circulated prior to (or during) the
voting process the main issues seemed to be :
i) Addressing the
perceived 802.11 coexistence issues / topics.
ii) Resolving the
outstanding TBDs
iii) Addressing more
clearly / constructively the "Negative" comments
Were there other
reasons / factors that we should know about ? Does 802 produce a set of comments
/ issues in support of its votes ? Will you be presenting a detailed report /
analysis of the SEC voting / issues before or at the Calgary meeting - together
with a set of objectives / priorities for addressing them ?
c) Call for
Contributions
Your call for
Contributions on "Mergers and Consolidations" seems to have come out of the
blue. It was not discussed or voted on at the St Louis meeting and does not
appear to address the specific issues involved in the SEC Sponsor Ballot
rejection (and I haven't seen any SEC comments concerning the technical content
of D3 or the number of options / modes). I also haven't seen a Call for
Contributions on the specific topics relevant to the Sponsor Ballot rejection
(see above).
In my opinion, the
current Call for Contributions is out of order, and a different one is required
to address the SEC issues.
So far, we have
avoided detailed / objective technical analysis / comparison against the FRD and
Channel / Traffic models because we have not actually eliminated or added any
technical proposals since the original contributions (except Mesh which seemed
to creep in through the TG4 side door). We have just consolidated / rationalized
into the current D3 format/structure and filled out a bunch of details, and
further actions were identified at St Louis to complete this process. If we are
now expecting to add or delete specific (significant) technical modes / options
(and I hear some rumors to that effect) then we MUST insist that this be done by
due proper technical evaluation / comparison against the established criteria,
otherwise we cannot claim to be following an accredited Standards creation
process.
Personally, I think
that we should continue to revise / refine D3 to meet the SEC concerns and then
resubmit for Sponsor Ballot. Opening up the draft for new proposals (additions
or significant deletions) will force a more lengthy technical process (possibly
two or three meeting cycles) and delay the whole project to the point of market
irrelevance (we're getting pretty close to that now).
d) Calgary
Meeting Agenda
Your Draft agenda
sticks to the TGa MAC / PHY split. Many of us have previously complained about
the way that this divides the Group into unnecessary / inefficient factions, and
this is even more true now that we don't have any significant / numerous
comments to resolve. My preference is to meet in Calgary as a single TGa group
and address the Draft Standard as a whole, focussing on the SEC issues etc. This
will also offset the effect of having a new Mobile Study Group in action, which
will also dilute the pool of talent available for resolving TGa
issues.
David
Trinkwon
Email :
Trinkwon@compuserve.com
USA Tel :
650 245 5650
Fax : 650 649 2728
UK Tel : +44 (0)7802
538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586