Re: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Document C802.16-04/15
Steve,
Thanks for your note. It bounced because you aren't a subscriber and
because you included an attachment.
I've re-uploaded your referenced "call for submissions" (the bottom
file at <http://le.wirelessman.org>).
I think it would be great if 802.19 would work with our LE ad hoc
committee regarding its task of recommending a procedure (perhaps a
802.16 Study Group request) in this area.
Regards,
Roger
>Dear Roger, Marianna and Mike,
>
> I believe as Roger stated in one of his emails that we should
>schedule some time at the July plenary for the members of the 802.16
>LE committee and the 802.19 Coexistence TAG to meet and discuss this
>topic.
>
> Your document proposes two tasks:
>
>1. A coexistence study methodology.
>2. Recommend coordination techniques.
>
> Currently, the 802.19 TAG is developing a Coexistence
>Assurance (CA) methodology document, which is exactly what you are
>proposing in step 1. The call for submissions was sent out to all
>802 wireless working groups and we have had little response. The
>call for submissions is attached. I would highly encourage members
>of the 802 LE committee to submit technical material on this topic.
>Our hope is that all working groups contribute to this document, so
>that it represents the best ideas of all of 802.
>
> Your second item is probably requires some more discussion.
>In 802.15.2 we developed some coexistence methodologies for
>Bluetooth and 802.11b. My personal belief is that standards need to
>be designed to operate in unlicensed band, and that additional
>coexistence methodologies should not need to be added later. But
>then that does not always happen.
>
> When would you like to schedule a joint meeting at the Plenary?
>
> I would like to welcome 802.16 to the unlicensed bands. :)
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>_____________________________
>Steve Shellhammer
>Intel Corporation
>(858) 391-4570
>stephen.j.shellhammer@intel.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:59 AM
>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Cc: shellhammer@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [LE Ad-Hoc] - Document C802.16-04/15
>
>cc: Steve Shellhammer, 802.19
>
>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