| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
G’day Steve I am not thrilled by some of the edits because they remove the underlying motivations and reasons for the liaison. That said, the latest version of the liaison still asks 3GPP RAN1 to finish the comment resolution
process on IEEE 802’s comments. The revised liaison makes it clear this will not occur until at least when IEEE 802 responds (in July) to 3GPP RAN1’s responses to IEEE 802’s previous liaison. Effectively, we are still asking for consensus without using that
term, so I am happy. J Bottom line: the revised liaison is reasonable and useful. If I was in Hawaii this week, and not Beijing, I would be voting to approve this version. Thank you to everyone who edited the document. Editorial: “acknowlegment” is spelt “acknowledgment” Andrew From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Andrew, We discussed and edits the liaison at the WG meeting today. I just emailed out the latest edits. We kept in some references to consensus, but removed some, based on inputs from participants. We will discuss this tomorrow in the WG closing. Regards, Steve From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@xxxxxxxxx]
G’day Steve I strongly suggest that we keep the reference to “consensus” The IEEE 802 emphasised at the 3GPP LAA Workshop that we follow a consensus process in the IEEE 802 when doing balloting. In particular, we accept comments from anyone and we resolve using a process that allows
the commenter an opportunity to respond to the response. The 3GPP folk responded that they also follow a consensus process. This was a very important statement that was major part of the success of the workshop, particularly as IEEE 802 was accepted by 3GPP
as relevant stakeholder. I also add that the concept of consensus is well known and understood in the standards community. It is very useful to use this concept in our liaison because it is so well understood. For your information the
full definition of consensus follows: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking
to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity Andrew From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Rich, Thanks for leading the group of interested parties in updating the liaison yesterday. I made some suggested edits, which are attached. We can discuss these and any other comments from others at the PM2 WG meeting later today. My main two comments are, ·
I think we need to follow the approved process and send this liaison from IEEE 802 o
Here is link to the process,
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/dcn/14/19-14-0089-01-0000-liaison-approval-process.pptx o
We can run a EC email ballot with an early close. We should be able to get the EC approval quickly. ·
My comment on the content is related to the use of the term “consensus” It is my recollection that at the 3GPP workshop the RAN Chair said that 3GPP would address comments from all stakeholders. I do not recall any statement on the
organizations “reaching consensus” and I do not know how that would be done anyways. So I made a few edits accordingly. Regards, Steve |