RE: Thank you for TG4b / 802.19 meeting

["Shellhammer, Steve" <sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert,

	As I said, I cannot support a motion to go to RevCom while the
WG has not distributed the CA document on WG and Sponsor Ballot.  I did
drop my No vote in November based on a promise that the CA document
would be distributed with the Sponsor ballot.  And that did not happen
on either the initial Sponsor Ballot or the recirculation.  I guess you
can say I am now from Missouri.

Regards,
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Poor [mailto:rpoor@ieee.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve
Cc: stds-802-19@ieee.org; Bob Heile; Marco Naeve;
aik.chindapol@siemens.com; carl.stevenson@ieee.org;
david.cypher@nist.gov; guenter.kleindl@siemens.com; giffordi@ieee.org;
jerry.upton@ieee.org; Joseph.Levy@interdigital.com;
mjlynch@nortelnetworks.com; nada.golmie@nist.gov; Roger B. Marks;
sli@sibeam.com; swhitesell@VTECH.CA; stuart.kerry@philips.com;
tom.siep@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Thank you for TG4b / 802.19 meeting

Steve:

I look forward to seeing the minutes.  In the meantime, I invite  
anyone in the group to give me early warning if we're headed off into  
the weeds.

I am puzzled, though.  My understanding was that if the CA document  
was made available with the next recirculation (and if the CA  
document itself passed muster) that that 802.19's requirements would  
be satisfied, and peace and coexistence would spread throughout the  
land.  Am I alone in this utopian vision?

- Rob

On 10 Mar 2006, at 13:42, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:

> Robert,
>
> 	Steve Whitesell, the TAG secretary, will be issuing the minutes
> within a few days.  You can check the minutes to see if they agree.
> Steve may notify you if he notices any discrepancies.
>
> 	I do want to reiterate that I cannot support the motion this
> afternoon to send the 15.4b draft to RevCom given that a CA  
> document was
> never distributed with any of the WG or Sponsor Letter Ballots.  I
> explained my reasoning to you earlier in the week.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Poor [mailto:rpoor@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 9:55 AM
> To: Shellhammer, Steve
> Cc: stds-802-19@ieee.org; Bob Heile; Marco Naeve
> Subject: Thank you for TG4b / 802.19 meeting
>
> Steve & gang:
>
> Thank you for making the time to meet with me on Wednesday.  Here are
> the notes I took away from our meeting.  Please let me know ASAP if I
> misses any important points!!!
>
> [1] Rob will amend CA document 15-05-0632-01-004b according to the
> instructions given in our meeting of November (see minutes
> 19-05-0052-00-0000-November-2005-Minutes.doc). [see PS below]
>
> [2] Rob will include the amended document (presumably
> 15-05-0632-02-004b) in the next recirculation of the TG4b draft.
>
> [3] Rob will make best efforts to get the amended document into the
> hands of the .19 group at least a week in advance of starting
> recirculation to give you time to review and comment.
>
> [4] 802.19 is NOT requesting that the CA document be made an Annex to
> the 15.4b draft.  (However, this may become the preferred form in
> future standards.)
>
> To save you a trip to the server, I've attached a copy of the un-
> amended CA document.
>
> Thank you all for your help and guidance.
>
> - Rob Poor
>
> P.S.: To the best of my understanding, the changes that the 802.19
> group is requesting are limited to the following, taken from the
> November minutes:
>
>> In the ensuing discussion, a point was made about the need to
>> clarify which system is the interferer and which is the victim when
>> presenting the results.  The document also needs to include the
>> 15.4b Task Group's conclusions as to whether the results are
>> acceptable.  In addition, it should mention that the reason no
>> analyses were made for interactions with other 802 wireless systems
>> such as 802.11 and 802.15.1 is that they operate in different
>> frequency bands.