RE: stds-802-16: discussions with ITU regarding IEEE 802.16
Roger,
Thank you for bringing the group up to date on the ITU discussions.
Two questions come to mind reading the notes and the letter:
- Can we come to a point where we step on each other toes when the regulator address's frequency issues? It was addressed in your discussions, but we need to try to look way into the future and see if we do not have a problem here.
- I think the mobility issue may be a point of contradicting interest with the ITU. This subject was also addressed in your discussion, and I noticed it was raised with high level of sensitivity and caution.
Unfortunately, I will miss the open plenary on Monday due to late arrival, but I hope we will have a chance to discuss it later.
Regards
Ofer
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: 05 November, 2003 3:02 AM
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Cc: stds-802-18@ieee.org; costa@nortelnetworks.com
Subject: stds-802-16: discussions with ITU regarding IEEE 802.16
I would like to bring you up to date regarding some discussions I have been having with ITU. I expect these discussions to lead to activity at Session #28.
During October 13-17, while in Geneva for ITU Telecom World, I had numerous discussions with ITU staff, of various levels, regarding IEEE 802.16. I would characterize the interest in IEEE 802.16 as very high.
On October 16, I met at ITU headquarters with several ITU-T and ITU-R staff members, along with (by telephone) Jose Costa (who serves as 802.16's ITU-R Liaison). On October 20, I had another meeting at ITU headquarters with Peter Wery, Chair of ITU-T Study Group 15 (SG15). Those discussions, and some background information, are summarized in an email I sent to Mr. Wery, posted as L802.16-03/10:
http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-03_10.pdf
Mr. Wery included this email in a document he prepared for SG15 during its meeting of 21-31 October 2003. I cannot provide you access to that document at this time. I expect to shortly receive a statement from SG15, which I will post. I anticipate that a reply will be due.
On October 28, I participated in a conference call set up by ITU-R staff to discuss possible interactions between ITU-R and IEEE 802.16. The staff has distributed the notes of that meeting, which I have posted as liaison input document L802.16-03/11:
http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-03_11.pdf
This document list some anticipated action items. It is my opinion that a statement from IEEE 802.16 would be in order.
I expect to spend significant effort during Session #28 next week in addressing this input. I plan to discuss it during the Opening Plenary and then appoint a drafting group (in which I plan to participate) to develop responses. I have spoken to 802.18 Chair Carl Stevenson about coordinating with 802.18 on those responses. The tentative plan is to present the status to 802.18 near the beginning of the week and discuss the draft responses on Wednesday. The details of the 802.18 coordination are not final.
Note that L802.16-03/11 suggests that the 802.16 Working Group "will discuss liaison activities with ITU and consider preparing a letter covering ITU-R aspects and the review of the nomination of a liaison officer with ITU-R and possibly ITU-T SG15." In the ITU-R case, Mr. Costa has informed me recently, as he has in the past, that he would welcome the appointment of a replacement liaison officer who would be able to attend meetings of both bodies. Should you have a suggestion regarding such an officer, please let me know. I also welcome your advance input on 802.16's responses.
Regards,
Roger
--
Dr. Roger B. Marks <mailto:marks@nist.gov> +1 303 497 3037
National Institute of Standards and Technology/Boulder, CO, USA
Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access
<http://WirelessMAN.org>