| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello all,
My tuppence...
I view the coexistence assurance document as a gating
function, but not
a component of the 802.11 standard. It has to
be available to the 802.19 TAG
to perform their function, and to the 802.11 voters
for information.
However, I don't see that it should be part of the
802.11 standard because:
1. It may confuse those who don't understand it's
purpose and vote no because
"you didn't show how 802.11n intereferes with my garage
door opener".
2. It is a lot of additional material for voters to
read.
3. It will not get maintained past some point where
it has ceased to perform
a function.
4. It would add significantly to the size of the
ammended standard.
5. I'd have to do some work as TGn editor to get
it into the right format.
None of these are excessively compelling reasons, but
on balance I'd vote
option 2.
Best Regards, From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com] Sent: 21 November 2006 21:17 To: Perahia, Eldad; 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 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]
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]
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,
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
|