| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Arnie, I'm also confused about what you are saying here, even though I am a principal party. Other EC members may really be in the dark. In particular, you said that "the chair of 802.16 has announced his intention of making a separate submittal to WP8F other than the joint submittal administered by 802.18 at the direction of the EC". I think it is important to be specific here. Could you tell me, for instance, what I announced, and when, and to whom? I can speculate as to your meaning (see point (2) below), but it would probably be helpful to the EC if they were not forced to speculate. When you say that "separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and contrary to the express direction of the EC," are you referring to the P&P (Clause 14.2, as noted by Pat)? If not, when and where else does the EC provide an "express direction" regarding submittals to ITU-R? Over the years, the 802.16 WG has initiated many contributions that went from IEEE to ITU-R. Some of these went to WP 8F. Of course, 8F has been disbanded, but I won't get too hung up on that issue since its work will undoubtedly be assigned to another WP. Still, I am not sure what topics you are addressing. What is the topic of the "the joint submittal administered by 802.18" you mentioned? Let's consider two particular topics that formerly fell under 8F. Both are related to IMT-Advanced: (1) Contributions of comments regarding the IMT-Advanced technical requirements. The IEEE 802.16 Working Group has participated actively with the 802.18 TAG toward reaching consensus contributions. It did so in preparation for the previous regularly-scheduled meeting of WP 8F (in May). In July, you volunteered to second a proposal that Mr. Stevenson offered as an email motion <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg09626.html> "that individual WGs be prohibited by the EC from presenting individual, potentially differing, inputs to ITU-R" regarding IMT-Advanced. The EC Chair ruled this motion out of order "since it is direct conflict with 802 P&P sections 14.1 and 14.2 which grant WGs an TAGs the ability to communicate directly with standards bodies and government bodies" <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg09570.html>. The Chair also said that "it does seem reasonable for the 802 WGs and TAGs to provide an IEEE 802 communication to the ITU-R IMT-Advanced activity if possible and I would encourage them to do so." To summarize the followup to that discussion, the 802.16 WG continued to follow the EC Chair's encouragement. It has not proposed to develop its own standalone input on this topic. In fact, in September, it submitted two contributions to the IEEE 802.18 TAG on the issue. One proposed that 802.18 develop input to ITU-R on IMT-Advanced evaluation criteria as well as IMT-Advanced technical requirements, and it proposed specific procedures and schedules to encourage efficient development of contributions by the November Plenary. The other offered detailed comments. These contributions were copied to the EC <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg09626.html>. To my knowledge, 802.18 received no other contributions on the IMT-Advanced topic for consideration in its September meeting. 802.18 decided to continue development before the November Plenary. To my understanding, only the 802.16 and 802.11 WGs contributed to that effort, which resulted in two drafts that were posted today. Is this "the joint submittal administered by 802.18" that you mentioned? If so, then I don't see any sign of the "intent" you believe I announced. On the contrary, I conclude that 802.16 has been active in supporting 802.18, on a voluntary basis, in the development of submittals intended as IEEE contributions regarding IMT-Advanced technical comments and evaluation criteria. So perhaps you were not thinking of this topic. (2) Contributions of technical proposed regarding the content of IMT-Advanced recommendations. The issue of whether IEEE 802.18 would try, in the future, to coordinate a joint contribution of a specific technical standard or standards as an element of IMT-Advanced recommendations was discussed within 802.18 during the July Plenary. Various views were stated, and no decision was reached <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg09526.html>. The 802.16 WG followed up with a contribution (IEEE L802.16-07/061) to the 802.18 Radio Regulatory TAG's September session, copying the EC <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg09626.html>. It is possible that you were referring to this document when you said that I announced my intention. But please note that this contribution was not an announcement by the WG Chair; it identified itself as a statement "from the 802.16 Working Group." Its purpose was "to share our views on the development/coordination of 802 radio interface technology submission(s) to ITU-R for IMT-Advanced." This document IEEE L802.16-07/061 <http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-07_061.pdf> is a serious analysis of the issue. It raises some important procedural and practical concerns. It argues that this case, which is a matter of standardization, is quite unlike the case of point (1) above. It makes clear that the 802.16 WG does expect to develop a proposal toward IMT-Advanced, based on the P802.16m Amendment, and it argues that the PAR assigns the responsibility for this internationalization to the WG. It suggests that forcing an 802-wide collaboration on technology standards for IMT-Advanced would be cumbersome, untimely, and ultimately unsuccessful. In conclusion: If the topic is whether WGs should, in the future, attempt to coordinate a joint contribution of a specific technical standard or standards as an element of IMT-Advanced recommendations, then it is clear that the 802.16 WG has taken a position against it and provided its reasons. A standalone proposal developed within a WG is routine under the procedures and, to my knowledge, is not contrary to any "express direction of the EC." I'd be happy to discuss this with the EC members. Roger On Nov 5, 2007, at 05:36 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
|