Re: [STDS-802-16] [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F response
Dear Arnie,
As you have dragged my name into this debate. Let's get the facts at
least right.
I have not attended any meeting in Montreal so you are possibly refering
to the July 2007 plenary when the 802.18 organized the IMT-Advanced
meeting. I'm attaching the link for notes of that meeting.
http://ieee802.org/18/Meeting_documents/2007_July/18-07-0061_IMT_Advance
d_meeting_July17_07.dot
This should at least help give more clarity on what was said at that
meeting.
Thanks & best regards,
jose
_____________________________________________
Jose Puthenkulam
Director, WiMAX Standards
Vice Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group
Wireless Standards and Technology,
Mobility Group
Intel Corporation
Desk: (503) 2646121; Cell: (503) 8038609
Mailto:jose.p.puthenkulam@intel.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:57 PM
> To: Roger B. Marks; SEC
> Cc: dot16; greenspan Arnie
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to
> ITU WP8F response
>
> All:
>
> Let me start to respond by stating that 802.20 was invited
> and agreed to participate in the development of a single
> common input from ITU WP8F under the leadership and
> coordination of Mike Lynch and 802.18. For our first input we
> had coordination, telecoms, disscussion and ultimately
> achieved consensus and a common 802 input.
> At the Montreal meeting (I believe) Mike lynch hosted an
> evening meeting discussing the next input to be developed by
> 802 for submittal to ITU. At that meeting the Vice Chair of
> 802.16 stood up and said that achieving a common input by
> working with the other working groups was too hard and that
> 802.16 would develop their own input. This may or may not be
> the position of 802.16 but it was said. I remember it
> distinctly because Steve Shellhammer responded by stating
> (inellegantly but I think accurately) that if achieving
> consensus was hard that was just tough because that is what
> we do in the IEEE and in 802.
> Now it appears by the responses received from Bob and Pat
> that, what I believed was direction from the EC that one
> input from 802 was to be developed and coordinated through
> 802.18 was not exactly what was decided by the EC. According
> to them, there may be an input from 802 via 802.18 but there
> may be other inputs from individuals or other companys or a
> variety of entities. This was not at all clear to me nor the
> basis that we in 802.20 joined in the 802.18 effort.
> What I have asked is that the EC clarify their intent. If the
> EC has asked for an 802.18 input and a variety of other
> inputs from sundry sources let us make that clear and I am
> certain that a Whitmans Sampler of inputs will sprout as
> inputs to ITU WP8F. If the EC beleives that this would cause
> confusion and reflect badly on the IEEE and 802 then we
> should say that and enforce a single input. If Roger would
> like to state that this has all been a terrible
> missunderstanding on my part and that he or other .16
> entities have no interntion, plan or interest in developing a
> different input, that would be helpfull, even though Pat and
> Bob seem to believe that as long as we put a different
> wrapping and name on an input that was developed within 802
> that is OK.
>
> Arnie Greenspan
>
>
> Original message from "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>:
> --------------
>
>
> > 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 > 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" > 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 . 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 .
> > 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 .
> > 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 > 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:
> >
> > > Arnie,
> > >
> > > I don't understand the meaning of "his intention of making a
> > > submittal".
> > > Do you mean that he is making a submittal on behalf of
> his Working
> > > Group or do you mean that he is planning a submittal as an
> > > individual or from a non-802 entity (e.g. his employer or another
> > > body). WP8F in your email means the ITU WP8F I assume.
> That makes it
> > > a communication to an "intergovernmental body" which comes under
> > > 14.2 of our rules rather than Coordination with Other Standards
> > > Bodies under 14.1, right?
> > >
> > > If he intends to make a submittal from his Working Group,
> then it is
> > > covered by our rules. Under 14.2.2 Working Group or TAG
> > > Communications, the submittal would need 75% approval of
> the Working
> > > Group or TAG and sent to the EC for 5 day review during which a
> > > motion could be made to block release of the submittal
> and submittal
> > > would be withheld while we voted on the motion.
> > >
> > > If he is making the submittal as an individual or due to
> his role in
> > > an
> > > non-802 organization, I believe that is allowed. In that
> case, the
> > > submittal should make clear that it is not from the WG or
> IEEE 802.
> > > We didn't give up the ability to participate in other
> standards when
> > > we took our leadership roles in IEEE 802. I participate in and
> > > submit input to T11 and at times in IETF without passing those
> > > submittals by LMSC.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Pat
> > >
> > > P.S., in reviewing the rules I noticed that Clause 14 of our P&P
> > > references 5.1.4 of the SB OM but 5.1.3 is the correct
> reference for
> > > Statements to external bodies. 5.1.4 is on Standards publicity.
> > > When we
> > > redo the P&P to split out bylaws, we should correct and probably
> > > should put clause title in external references so that the reader
> > > has some help if the referenced document changes clause
> numbers. I
> > > also noticed that
> > > 5.1.3 of the SB OM says all external statements should include in
> > > the opening paragraph or as a footnote to that paragraph:
> > >
> > > "This document solely represents the views of name of
> group and does
> > > not necessarily represent a position of either the IEEE
> or the IEEE
> > > Standards Association."
> > >
> > > I don't recall seeing that statement in all our external
> > > communications.
> > >
> > > -------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
> > > From: "IEEE LISTSERV Server (15.0)"
> > > To: greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET
> > > Subject: Rejected posting to STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:51:43 +0000
> > > All:
> > >
> > > Paul has requested that I bring a concern that I have to the
> > > attention of the EC and that this subject be added as an
> agenda item
> > > for discussion by the EC in Atlanta. This message is in
> the way of a
> > > heads up to the members of the EC so that we can exchange
> views on
> > > the Ec reflector.
> > >
> > > Briefly;
> > > My concern is 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
> > > that a separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and
> contrary to
> > > the express direction of the EC. I request that the EC
> clarify their
> > > direction so that all working groups will be playing on a level
> > > playing field.
> > > Arnie Greenspan
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector.
> > > This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector.
> > This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>