Re: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Document C802.16-04/15
Marianna,
In my previous note, I disagreed with some details of Mike and
David's specific proposal for a Study Group. However, I neglected to
say that I support the basic intent of the proposal, which is that
the the LE ad committee should discuss recommending the creation of a
Study Group (or some alternate approach) to address the problems that
have been defined. I think that a lot of the material in
C802.16-04/15 is very helpful in that regard.
I suggest that the LE ad hoc should try to meet with 802.19 to
discuss this, both before and after its Tuesday night meeting.
I think that the LE ad hoc committee should plan to conclude its work
and submit a final recommendation at the 802.16 Closing Plenary of 15
July. If the recommendation is to form a Study Group, then we'll need
a few slides on the topic that I can show the EC in asking them to
approve the formation of such a group.
Regards,
Roger
>Mike's document seems to propose a Study Group that would,
>presumably, lead to a new Working Group. I disagree with this
>proposal, and I don't think it would be approved by the 802 EC. It
>seems to me that there are two better places for the work:
>
>(a) In a PAR for an amendment to IEEE Std 802.16.2, extending that
>Recommended Practice on Coexistence from licensed bands to
>license-exempt. The major drawback is that it might be hard to
>consider 802.11 material inside an 802.16 project. On the other
>hand, if it is making recommendations for changes to 802.16, not
>802.11, it would probably be fine.
>
>(b) In the 802.19 Coexistence TAG. As far as I can tell, the
>proposal would fit squarely within the realm of 802.19. A TAG can
>develop Recommended Practices (which are one of the types of IEEE
>Standards).
>
>To see what 802.19 is up to lately, see their proposed 802 rules changes:
> http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg05254.html
>which will be discussed on July 11.
>
>See also their tutorial:
> http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg05250.html
>which is Tuesday, 6:30-8 pm (just before our LE ad hoc meeting).
>
>They have scheduled meeting time for most of Tuesday and Wednesday.
>
>Of course, a Study Group has a PAR as an output, not an input.
>However, there is a decision that would need to be made in advance,
>because a Study Group is either a WG Study Group or an Executive
>Committee Study Group. For direction (a), we'd want a WG Study
>Group. For (b), we could have an 802.19 Study Group or, I would
>suggest, just an 802.19 effort without the formality of a Study
>Group. Mike's proposal is a type (c), which would seem to imply an
>Executive Committee Study Group. This would look like a competitor
>to 802.19, which I don't think the EC will support.
>
>Roger
>
>At 09:23 -0400 2004-07-02, Kiernan, Brian G. wrote:
>>Isn't this already the domain of 802.19? If not, how does it differ?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@ALVARION.COM]
>>Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 6:13 AM
>>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Document C802.16-04_15
>>
>>Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>Michael and David have an interesting proposal up-loaded,
>>"Views on the Issues being Investigated by the License-Exempt
>> ad hoc and a Proposal for Conducting the Work".
>>
>>You can download from:
>>
>> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/C80216-04_15.pdf
>>
>>I invite you to open the discussion using the e-mail
>> reflector.
>>
>>KR,
>>
>>Marianna
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Michael Lynch [mailto:mjlynch@nortelnetworks.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:04 PM
>>To: Marianna Goldhammer
>>Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Call for Contributions
>>
>>
>>Marianna,
>>I have uploaded a proposal (C802.16-04_15.doc) on the WG.
>>Regards,
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@ALVARION.COM]
>>Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 07:21
>>To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Call for Contributions
>>
>>
>>Dear Colleagues,
>>The dead-line is extended to June 28 (Monday), to not force people
>>working
>>on week-end!
>>Note that this dead-line is "soft": we will be happy to discuss, before
>>the
>>meeting, contributions coming up in the next 10 days.
>>Kind Regards,
>>Marianna