Re: [STDS-802-16] Comments received on draft 802.16m PAR
Avi, Roger,
IMHO the submissions to ITU are an IEEE issue (as sector member), not of
a specific WG and of course not of a PAR.
Probably 802 EC can look at specific rules, but seems premature now.
Regards,
Mariana
-----Original Message-----
From: Avi Freedman [mailto:avif@HEXAGONLTD.COM]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 23:20
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Comments received on draft 802.16m PAR
Roger,
Sorry for my late response.
I don't have any particular problem with any of Steve's suggestion but
one.
I don't understand what stands behind the statement: "The 802.16m
amendment
will be the only submission to from the IEEE 802.16 working group to the
ITU-R for inclusion in IMT-Advanced"
First of all I don't think an amendment per se will be submitted to
ITU-R,
but rather a document based on it. Secondly I don't see any point in
limiting 802.16 to submit only a single document. There might be several
options/ cases/ bands and so on. The ITU itself may require in the
future
for several proposals.
I suggest to delete this sentence.
Avi
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:18 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Comments received on draft 802.16m PAR
I have received comments on the draft 802.16m PAR. See:
http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_063.pdf
Roger
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Shellhammer, Steve" <sshellha@qualcomm.com>
> Date: October 30, 2006 02:47:03 PM MST
> To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>, <STDS-802-
> SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Draft 802.16m PAR for 802 EC consideration in
> November
>
> Roger,
>
> I reviewed the 16m PAR and 5C and I have several suggested
> edits. I want to ensure that this project does not prevent any other
> working groups from developing solutions for IMT-Advanced, so there
> are
> a few edits related to that. I also modified the text regarding the
> coexistence assurance document in the 5C. I spoke to several people
> regarding IMT-Advanced and at this point the requirements are not
> clear
> enough to say that IMT-Advanced will only operate in licensed bands.
> The wording is such that a CA document is only required if unlicensed
> bands are used. Finally, there are a few general edits.
>
> The suggested edits are in an attached work document. I made
> the changes with "track changes" enabled so to make the suggested
> changes easy to identify.
>
> See you in Dallas.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Draft 802.16m PAR for 802 EC consideration in
> November
>
> Dear 802 EC Colleagues:
>
> I am writing to notify you of a new PAR proposal that arose out of
> the 802.16 WG's September interim session:
>
> * P802.16m: <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_054.pdf>
> * Five C: <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_055.pdf>
>
> To help explain the proposal, we are arranging an accompanying
> tutorial on Monday evening:
> * Tutorial: <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_056.pdf>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Roger
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************
************
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************
************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************