Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: 802.11n CA document

Eldad,

 

            I think either option 1 or 2 will still allow the group to complete its work and include it in an informative annex.  I don’t think anyone can guarantee how people will choose to vote.  I will say that in the past the 802.19 TAG has never voted NO on what was believed to be the “final” version of the CA document.  I believe the TAG has always operated with the intention of helping out and not trying to block any progress.

 

Regards,

Steve

 

From: Perahia, Eldad [mailto:eldad.perahia@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 3:35 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; stuart@ok-brit.com; sli@sibeam.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; 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