Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.11 Contention-Based Protocol SG update
At 10:02 +0300 2005-07-15, Mariana Goldhamer wrote:
>Roger,
>
>We may use the 802.16h night session to draft the 802.16 comments.
PAR comments are due at 5 pm Tuesday. If, on the other hand, the comments relate to the SG itself, rather than to its PAR, then that deadline isn't critical.
>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?
I don't think there will be support for yet another SG on this topic. Perhaps some broadening of the charter of the CBG SG would be better received.
>Regards,
>
>Mariana
Roger
>-----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consideration by the 802 EC on and withdrawn from the Friday agenda at the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.
>************************************************************************************