Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.11 Contention-Based Protocol SG update
Roger,
We may use the 802.16h night session to draft the 802.16 comments.
The coexistence in light-licensed bands should be appropiately addressed in
the 802 relevant standards, independent of the future FCC regulatory
decissions on the 3.65GHz band. Can we propose a Study Group to address this
issue? Which would be the best location: 802.16, 802.19, 802?
Regards,
Mariana
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:32 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.11 Contention-Based Protocol SG update
Interesting news below regarding plans for the 802.11 Contention-Based
Protocol SG. There appears to be an intent to withdraw the PAR proposal for
now.
If 802.16 has comments on the PAR, we might still want to submit them, in
the unlikely case that 802.11 would decide to go ahead with the PAR in spite
of the SG recommendation. Or we could simply submit a statement supporting
the plans, or proposing a modification of the plans.
Roger
>From: "Stuart J. Kerry" <stuart@OK-BRIT.COM>
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Contention-Based Protocol SG / 802.11y PAR and
5C update
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>
>802 EC Members,
>
>I have received the attached email from the Chair (Peter Ecclesine) of the
802.11 Contention Based Protocol Study Group (CBP SG).
>
>He informs me that the SG feel that as the situation with the FCC is
unclear at present as pertaining to the current 802.11y PAR and 5C work
effort, the study group members feel that acting upon approval of this PAR
for forwarding with EC approval to NesCom is questionable at present.
Therefore, the current resolve is to present the facts to the 802.11 WG body
during our Monday afternoon WG Plenary in San Francisco. This would be to
recommend to the WG membership that the PAR and 5C be removed for
consideration by the 802 EC on and withdrawn from the Friday agenda at the
July session. Subsequently, the 802.11 would ask for the 802 EC at the
closing Friday meeting to extend the life of the CBP SG up to and including
the next Plenary in November 2005, if so approved by the 802.11 membership.
>
>Finally, the Chair of the SG unfortunately has an unavoidable personal
issue so he will not be able to attend the 802 EC Meeting on Monday or the
802.11 Opening Plenary, but will be at our session from Wednesday onwards.
In the meantime I have asked Jan Kruys to act as Chair pro-tem until Peter
joins us later in the week. Jan has played an active part in the work of the
SG and will be present at the 802 EC Monday meeting as well as driving the
WG debate.
>
>I will inform you via email after the 802.11 WG Opening meeting (Monday
1:30pm to 3:30 pm) of the outcome of the memberships view or decision.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Stuart
>
>_______________________________
>
>Stuart J. Kerry
>Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
>Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
>1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
>San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
>United States of America.
>eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
>
>>From: Peter Ecclesine (pecclesi) [mailto:pecclesi@cisco.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:57 PM
>>To: stuart@ok-brit.com; Stuart Kerry
>>Subject: Contention-Based Protocol SG update
>>
>>
>>Hi Stuart,
>>
>>At our last SG telecon, we reviewed the situation:
>>
>>There is no timetable for the start of FCC actions. The publication of FCC
05-45, 70/80/90 GHz took three months, of 05-65 3650-3700 MHz took two
months.
>>
>>FCC 05-65 Wireless Broadband Services in the 3650-3700 MHz Band became law
May 11th
>>
>>Eight petitions for reconsideration were received by the FCC on June 10th
>>
>>There are four distinct possibilities:
>>
>>The FCC publishes a notice asking for comments on the petitions, and
replies to those comments (60 days)
>>
>>The FCC publishes a notice asking for replies to the petitions (15 or 30
days)
>>
>>The FCC writes a memorandum opinion and order, perhaps making small
changes
>>
>>The FCC does nothing
>>
>>The CBP-SG felt that acting on 802.11-05/565r1 draft PAR in the July
session is questionable, and will discuss the situation in the 802.11 Monday
WG Plenary, and ask that the Study Group be continued through the November
Plenary, so that we can make whatever changes seem adequate and have the
November ExCom meeting decide.
>>
>>petere
>>
>>Peter Ecclesine, Technology Analyst, New Markets & New Technologies
>>MS SJ-10-5 170 West Tasman Dr, San Jose, CA 95134-1706
>>Ph 408/527-0815, FAX 408/526-7864
>>"Time doesn't fool around." "Without Prejudice" U.C.C. 1-207
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
****************************************************************************
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
****************************************************************************
********
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
****************************************************************************
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
****************************************************************************
********
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************