Re: [STDS-802-16] Comments received on draft 802.16m PAR
I support Avi's point. It is far too early in the IMT-Advanced process for 802.16 to make a judgment on the scope of its involvement of this sort.
Perhaps Steve could explain why he feels it is in the interests of the membership for 802.16 to include such restrictive language in one of its PARs?
David Holmes
clearw˙re(r)
Phone +1 (425) 216-7789
Cell +1 (206) 696-6713 or (206) 571-1558
Fax +1 (425) 216-7900
5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Suite 300
Kirkland, WA 98033, USA
http://www.clearwire.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Avi Freedman [mailto:avif@HEXAGONLTD.COM]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 3:20 PM
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