-----Original Message----- From: Reza Arefi
[mailto:reza.arefi@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 6:56
PM To: 'Joanne Wilson'; '802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)' Cc:
marcg@arraycomm.com; mike@arraycomm.com Subject: RE:
stds-80220-coexistence: Revision 2 of the Coexistence CG recommendation to the
WG
Joanne,
While it is true that the
sentence you suggest goes without saying, it is also true that it is a
requirement. And it is a requirement that can actually be enforced by the
regulatory authorities. So, it makes sense that 802.20 requirements document
acknowledge it due to its importance. For instance, the requirements
document says that 802.20 systems are required to operate below 3.5 GHz. Given
the PAR, this is also a given but it needs to be mentioned due to its
importance.
I will replace the last
sentence of section 5.1 with what you suggested below unless I hear objections
from others by midnight.
Regards,
Reza
-----Original Message----- From:
owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Joanne Wilson Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:14
AM To: reza.arefi@ieee.org; 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail) Cc:
marcg@arraycomm.com; mike@arraycomm.com Subject: RE:
stds-80220-coexistence: Revision 2 of the Coexistence CG recommendation to
the WG
Reza,
I am concerned
about the following text at the end of section 5.1:
It is, therefore,
recommended that the future CTG work with the requirements CG to make sure
this
requirement be clearly
reflected in the requirements document.
My first concern is that the CTG,
which would be formed after its PAR is approved, couldn't come into
being
until March 2004 at the earliest. I truly hope
that the Requirements CG would have completed its work
before then, at least for the first release of the
802.20 standard. My second concern is that the requirements
document is being cast as if it imposes requirements on operators and
vendors. It doesn't. The requirements document establishes requirements for the air
interface. With respect to the regulatory requirements, they are
market-dependent and
band-dependent. So, it's not clear to me what meaningful requirement
could be established without knowledge of the specific bands and their
associated regulatory requirements. We could replace the above text with the
following:
It is, therefore, recommended that the Requirements CG take
into consideration the need
for
802.20 systems to meet specific regulatory requirements in the
market in which they are
deployed.
Personally, I expect folks
to say, "No kidding. Doesn't this go without saying." Hence, my
preference would be to delete the sentence
altogether.
Best regards,
Joanne
-----Original Message----- From:
owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Reza Arefi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:55
PM To: 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail) Subject:
stds-80220-coexistence: Revision 2 of the Coexistence CG recommendation to
the WG
Folks,
I am attaching revision 2 of our
document to this email. Blue text is what we have agreed to. There is also
some new text that you would need to have "track changes" activated to see
it. We don't have any more conference calls so please submit your comments
(and responses to others' comments) to the reflector no later than
midnight (EST) on Friday 11/7/03. I am planning to submit the document on
Saturday.
A few points:
1. I included Al's text related to
equipment characteristics in section 4.1. I believe that this section
and section 5.5, however, are covering the same thing; input required for
the coexistence work. I propose that we combine these two sections under
5.5. Please let me know if you have any objection.
2. I have added MSWord comments
for new text stating who the text is from. You need to activate "View
-> Comments" to be able to see them.
3. For the sake of clarity and
structure of the document I put the two differing viewpoints on 5.2 into
an appendix.