RE: 802.11n CA document

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

Sheung,

	I agree 100% that having the document included in an informative
annex is an excellent method to ensure that the information is not lost.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Sheung Li [mailto:sheung@atheros.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:25 PM
To: eldad.perahia@intel.com; Shellhammer, Steve; stuart@ok-brit.com
Cc: stds-802-19@ieee.org; paul.nikolich@att.net;
aik.chindapol@siemens.com; carl.stevenson@ieee.org;
david.cypher@nist.gov; guenter.kleindl@siemens.com; giffordi@ieee.org;
john.barr@motorola.com; Joseph.Levy@InterDigital.com;
Mark.austin@ofcom.org.uk; mjlynch@NORTELNETWORKS.COM;
nada.golmie@nist.gov; bheile@ieee.org; swhitesell@vtech.ca;
tom.siep@ieee.org; bkraemer@marvell.com; adrian.p.stephens@intel.com
Subject: RE: 802.11n CA document

Providing coexistence analysis as an informative annex is 
something that the 802.15.4 family already does, and that 
would likely be one of the last things that we do once 
everything else has settled down.

In so far as the analysis there is meaningful and useful 
to future implementers of 11n or those who might need to 
coexist with it, it'd be useful to keep it around.  If we 
don't move it into such an annex, the document would 
effectively disappear except for those experienced with 
searching the 802 archives.

==S

________________________________________
From: Perahia, Eldad [mailto:eldad.perahia@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 3:35 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; stuart@ok-brit.com; Sheung Li
Cc: stds-802-19@ieee.org; paul.nikolich@att.net; 
aik.chindapol@siemens.com; carl.stevenson@ieee.org; 
david.cypher@nist.gov; guenter.kleindl@siemens.com; 
giffordi@ieee.org; john.barr@motorola.com; 
Joseph.Levy@InterDigital.com; Mark.austin@ofcom.org.uk; 
mjlynch@NORTELNETWORKS.COM; nada.golmie@nist.gov; 
bheile@ieee.org; swhitesell@vtech.ca; tom.siep@ieee.org; 
Bruce Kraemer; Stephens, Adrian P
Subject: RE: 802.11n CA document

Hi all,

I believe we are very close to completion of the CA 
document for 802.11n, so we might as well be good 
"citizens" and complete the work.  If I knew a priori that 
the CA document would not cause NO votes for the next 
802.11n letter ballot, I would say we proceed with (1). 
 Without such guarantee, I'm leaning towards choice (2). 
 And in fact, 802.19 has already been given the latest 
approved 802.11n CA document, along with a presentation.

If we include the CA document as an informative annex, I 
would again be concerned with NO votes based on this 
annex.  Perhaps we could reference the CA document in the 
11n draft?

Regards,
Eldad

________________________________________
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:12 AM
To: stuart@ok-brit.com; sli@sibeam.com; Perahia, Eldad
Cc: stds-802-19@ieee.org; paul.nikolich@att.net; 
aik.chindapol@siemens.com; carl.stevenson@ieee.org; 
david.cypher@nist.gov; guenter.kleindl@siemens.com; 
giffordi@ieee.org; john.barr@motorola.com; 
Joseph.Levy@InterDigital.com; Mark.austin@ofcom.org.uk; 
mjlynch@NORTELNETWORKS.COM; nada.golmie@nist.gov; 
bheile@ieee.org; Shellhammer, Steve; swhitesell@vtech.ca; 
tom.siep@ieee.org
Subject: 802.11n CA document

Stuart, Sheung and Eldad,
  
             As Stuart knows, there was a vote at the 
closing EC meeting on Friday for the EC to confirm the 802 
Chairs ruling in January 2005 that any unlicensed wireless 
project that had not started working group letter ballot 
when the coexistence procedure was approved in November 
2004, was required to produce a CA document.  The motion 
failed and hence 802.11n is no longer required to produce 
a CA document.
  
             I wanted to send you this email to enumerate 
the options I personally believe the working group has. 
 Here are the options I can think of,
  
1.	The working group could choose to include the CA 
document on the next working group letter ballot, that as 
I understand it will hopefully be after the January 
Interim.  If the working group chooses this option, the 
TAG will follow its standard procedure of voting on the CA 
document as per the TAG P&P.
2.	The working group could choose to not include the CA 
document on its next working group letter ballot. But it 
could choose to send it directly to the TAG and request 
the TAG's technical feedback.  If the working group 
chooses this option, then I will circulate the CA document 
within the TAG and collect comments, which we could review 
with interested parties in TGn at a subsequent meeting. 
 This option allows the working group the technical 
feedback without having the TAG formally vote on the 
draft.
3.	The working group can stop work on the CA document and 
put it on the shelf.
  
At one point, I believe I heard someone say the TGn is 
considering including the CA document in an informative 
annex in the amendment.  If that is the plan, it is my 
personal opinion that either option 1 or option 2 would be 
the best choice.
  
The working group does not need to make this decision 
until at least January.  If you or anyone else wants to 
discuss this further please give me a call and we can 
discuss it further.
  
             No matter which decision the working group 
chooses the TAG will be supportive of your decision.  I 
also, would like to commend Eldad and Sheung for 
generating an excellent CA document. I believe it has been 
very useful.
  
Regards,
Steve