Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g PARS
Ofer,
You talk good sense here, as does Avi. If only 802.16, 802.18 and 802.20
could
work together as a team but retain their individual WG aims.
Jo.
>From: Ofer Kelman <okelman@AIRSPAN.COM>
>Reply-To: Ofer Kelman <okelman@AIRSPAN.COM>
>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g
>PARS
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:27:33 +0300
>
>DJ,
>
>I agree with Avi that your reaction is extreme in suggesting the EC to
>close down 802.20.
>The fact that they are trying to get together against a mutual "enemy" is a
>kind of behaviour that does not carry any dignity to its owner. But as Avi
>stated is not a good enough reason to act against a (sort of) live PAR.
>
>I agree with the group's letter that sends replies to 802.20's addressed
>issues.
>
>Regards
>Ofer
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Avi Freedman
>Sent: 15 July, 2004 3:38 PM
>To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g
>PARS
>
>
>DJ,
>I really don't believe you are trying to turn the Excutive Commitee into an
>Execution Committee. It seems to me that by suggesting to stop the 802.20
>PAR you are doing the same thing that you suggest others not to do - namely
>interfere with the work of other WG's in the most destructive way. Asking
>to
>close an existing PAR is, as far as I know, unprecedented request, and your
>(fully justified) anger with them directing the chair not ot approve our
>(your) 802.16g PAR is not a good enough reason for that. WG has known to
>be
>closed in the past, but (again, as far as I know) of their own decision,. I
>beleive 802.20 is going on the same path and there is no need to help it
>along.
>
>But the cases of the 802.16e PAR and the 802.18SG PAR are totally
>different.
>The 802.18 SG PAR is being started the wrong way. By directing our chair
>to
>vote against it we are just demonstrating this fact. It is not directed
>against the excellent work 802.18 is doing in the Regulatory domain, but
>rather against the bad work they are starting to do tryting to spawn a new
>WG without letting the others know about it, without a tutorial and without
>putting it on the agenda in time. The fact is that they do NOT have a
>distinct identity, They are trying to re-write a 802.16 standard within a
>802.16 band. When we learn more about it we might be convinced that an
>independent PAR is warranted but till then I believe the PAR should wait. I
>have seen Roger's letter, and I fully agree with it.
>
>As for the IEEE 802.16e, our group is trying to change the PAR and include
>modes that are imcompatible to our won standard. It so happened that 802.20
>has also indicated it. So, as you see in this case good can also come out
>of
>evil.
>
>Avi
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Johnston, Dj" <dj.johnston@INTEL.COM>
>To: <STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org>
>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:07 AM
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g
>PARS
>
>
> > I think there is something of a lesson to be learned here, regarding
> > what is appropriate for a WG to do, in the context of the current PAR
> > activity in 802.16 and 802.18.
> >
> > We have heared comment suggesting that the 802.18SG1 proposal for an
> > 802.22 WG is a violation of procedure and overlaps with the scope of
> > 802.16 heavily and so we should take drastic measures such as directing
> > the chair to vote against the PAR.
> >
> > At the same time, 802.20 have argued in the rational in the powerpoint
> > below, that 802.16e fails to have distinct identity from their PAR and
> > have gone ahead and directed their chair to vote against it. For good
> > measure, they've done the same to the .16g PAR, by trying (erroneously I
> > feel) to argue that it is tied to the .16e scope.
> >
> > I and I assume the majority of .16, based on today's voting, think that
> > what we are doing with the .16e PAR is reasonable and is to some extent
> > a compromise and to some extent a harmonization of views and wills
> > within .16. Accordingly I find 802.20's actions to be totally
> > unwarranted and the sort of intrusive and unreasonable behaviour that we
> > should not tolerate in IEEE 802.
> >
> > So how does this make us look if we turn around and direct our chair to
> > vote against the 802.22 PAR, rather requiring him to justify his
> > position? I suggest that it puts us in the same position with respect to
> > 802.18SG1 as 802.20 are with respect to us.
> >
> > My personal conviction is that 802.18 actually have our better interests
> > at heart. They have worked consistently to improve the regulatory
> > environment we work within and have served us well with provision of the
> > spectrum and improvement of spectrum regulations that are the lifeblood
> > of IEEE 802 wireless groups. This current 802.22 proposal seen in the
> > light of the constraints 802.18SG1 are working within, trying to achieve
> > a compromise acceptable to broadcasters, the IEEE, equipment
> > manufacturers, operators and the FCC on access to TV bands makes some
> > sense. The apparently informal nature of the process followed in the
> > submission of the 802.22 PAR is consisent with the somewhat informal
> > nature of 802.18, consistent with its size. We are judging them harshly
> > on these matters.
> >
> > Therefore I am in favour of the 802.16 response that emphasised
> > improving our understanding of the proposal, and reject the notion that
> > we simply reject the proposal. I think there is much to be learned about
> > what is driving these PAR proposals that will help us understand the
> > nature and suitability of the proposal.
> >
> > We are in a situation where we can take a more principled position and
> > direct our ire in the direction of those who are seeking to block our
> > progress, rather than those who actually are delivering the spectrum
> > goods.
> >
> > Accordingly I think that directing the 802.16 chair to request a
> > withdrawl of the 802.20 PAR at the EC is a far more reasonable action
> > than directing him to vote against the 802.22 PAR.
> >
> > I think there is a strong rational for such action, given the net
> > negative effect that 802.20 has had on the operation of other groups I
> > am familiar with, including 802.16e, the Netman SG, the handover ECSG
> > and the EC, compared to their rate of work and their technical output
> > that has amounted to nothing to date.
> >
> > Unless I am pursuaded otherwise in the interim period, I plan to make
> > such a motion at the 802.16 closing plenary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > DJ
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Forwarded by
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:46 AM
> > To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.20 Voted Positions on 802.16e and g PARS
> >
> >
> > The referenced attachment is at
> > <http://ieee802.org/secmail/bin00165.bin> -Roger
> >
> > >All,
> > >The 802.20 Working Group passed two Directed Position motions regarding
> >
> > >the 802.16e and g PARs. Both motions direct the Chair to vote against
> > >approving the PARs. Attached are the motions and the associated
> > >rationale as discussed and approved by the members.
> > >I have also placed a paper copy in your office folders.
> > >Regards,
> > >Jerry Upton
> > >Chair, IEEE 802.20
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo