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

Re: [802.19] 40 MHz 11n

Bruce,

 

            That is fine.  I only copied the EC since Paul brought up the issue and I wanted the EC to be aware of it.

 

Steve

 

From: Bruce Kraemer [mailto:bkraemer@marvell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:01 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; paul.nikolich@att.net
Cc: stds-802-19@ieee.org; STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org; carl.stevenson@ieee.org; david.cypher@nist.gov; eldad.perahia@intel.com; I_reede@amerisys.com; john.barr@motorola.com; Joseph.Levy@InterDigital.com; Mark.austin@ofcom.org.uk; mjlynch@nortel.com; nada.golmie@nist.gov; ppiggin@nextwave.com; bheile@ieee.org; sli@sibeam.com; swhitesell@vtech.ca; vivek.g.gupta@intel.com
Subject: RE: 40 MHz 11n

 

Steve,

I don’t believe the EC is the proper place for a debate but sponsor ballot is. I can understand that members of the EC contain interested parties but I don’t want that group to turn into a comment resolution committee.

 

Bruce

 

From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:06 PM
To: paul.nikolich@att.net
Cc: stds-802-19@ieee.org; STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org; Bruce Kraemer; carl.stevenson@ieee.org; david.cypher@nist.gov; eldad.perahia@intel.com; I_reede@amerisys.com; john.barr@motorola.com; Joseph.Levy@InterDigital.com; Mark.austin@ofcom.org.uk; mjlynch@nortel.com; nada.golmie@nist.gov; ppiggin@nextwave.com; bheile@ieee.org; Shellhammer, Steve; sli@sibeam.com; swhitesell@vtech.ca; vivek.g.gupta@intel.com
Subject: 40 MHz 11n

 

Paul,

 

            As you can see there are some strong concerns from other working groups on this topic.  There have been emails on the 19/15/11 reflectors so you may not have seen all of them.

 

            Since the 11n PAR was earlier than the 802 coexistence rules the TAG does not vote on this draft.  At one point 802.11 produced a CA document based on your direction, but once it was ruled by the EC that the WG did was not required to produce a CA document it was dropped.

 

            So it sounds like there are people who are going to vote against this motion based on this issue.  It sounds like it will come up at the EC when the draft is ready to go to Sponsor ballot.  I am not sure when that will be.

 

            Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this issue?

 

Since these coexistence issues cut across WGs it is important that the EC members are aware of it, so I copied the EC.

 

Regards,

Steve