| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Paul/Roger, I think the best thing going forward is to renew the Study Group so we can write a PAR and submit it in July. I have tried to capture your feedback and make that part of the presentation to renew the SG. Please take a look at the attached and let me know what you think. Best, Jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:28 PM To: 'Roger B. Marks'; 'Jim Lansford' Cc: 'Tim Blaney'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org Subject: RE: [802SEC] Coexistence TAG proposal Jim, Roger is correctly describing what I recommended. Development of a Coexistence Recommended Practice document should be the goal of the group. May I suggest the purpose of the document to be: define the term "coexistence" and to recommend methods by which coexistence may be achieved with IEEE802. This project would require obtaining a PAR, balloting, and IEEE SA approval. --Paul -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:14 PM To: Jim Lansford Cc: Tim Blaney; stds-802-sec@ieee.org Subject: RE: [802SEC] Coexistence TAG proposal Jim: We seem to have a language misunderstanding. The proposal refers to "Recommended Procedures" and "guidelines for addressing coexistence of draft standards prior to sponsor ballot" that would be subject to "75% approval vote by the members of the 802 COEX TAG". Below, you mention a 'Recommended Practice that described for a WG how to establish that a draft "coexists" with existing approved standards.' What I mentioned in my comment was "tasking a coexistence TAG to write a PAR and then a Recommended Practice on coexistence," approved with "full balloting machinery," that, if successful, "would be widely influential and therefore worthwhile as a published IEEE Recommended Practice." I was trying to emphasize that I am talking about a Recommended Practice, not some "recommended procedures". It could also be a Guideline, but not some "guidelines". I believe that we are talking about different things. Paul can correct me if I am wrong, but it was clear in my mind that what I am describing is what he suggested. I tried to be clear on this issue in all the discussions I've had on the topic this week. Roger At 1:19 PM -0600 02/03/14, Jim Lansford wrote: >Roger, > Thanks for the prompt comments...they are very helpful. > > I was attempting to capture the concept that you, Paul, and I had >discussed - creation of a Recommended Practice that described for a WG how >to establish that a draft "coexists" with existing approved standards, which >has to establish at the outset what "coexistence" means. > I then tried to go beyond that to describe an ongoing role that the TAG >would play in advising SEC about whether a draft indeed met the Recommended >Practice. These are certainly sequential; in my view, we need to: > a) Establish a definition of coexistence that is ratified by the WGs > b) Using that definition as a basis, write a Recommended Practice that >describes to the WGs how to achieve "coexistence" (e.g., a TG needs to show, >either by analysis or simulation, that a proposed draft coexists by >quantifying the degradation due to interaction with other IEEE wireless >standards, under the assumption of a set of usage models.) This Recommended >Practice would clearly need to be ratified either at the SEC level, the WG >level, or both. > c) Once a recommended practice is in place, someone (could be the TAG, >could be SEC members) needs to assess whether a draft has complied with the >recommended practice. The foils suggest that the TAG could have an ongoing >role in doing this; as we discussed yesterday, the individual SEC members >could certainly form their own opinions individually without having a TAG >weigh in. That's for the SEC to decide, I'd say. > > It wasn't my intent to appear to put the cart before the horse...if the >foils don't reflect the sequence of events above, then they may need to be >reworked some. If the SEC members would rather have the TAG do only steps >a) and b), we can certainly make those changes, but I wanted to lay out the >whole roadmap. > > Let me know your thoughts about going forward. > >Best, >Jim > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. >Marks >Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:25 AM >To: Jim Lansford >Cc: Tim Blaney; stds-802-sec@ieee.org >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Coexistence TAG proposal > > > >Jim, > >Thanks for the chance to preview this. > >What I'm seeing here is a proposal for "a committee that reviews and >makes coexistence recommendations to ExCom on current or proposed >PARs and WG draft standards". > >I'm surprised that this proposal doesn't mention tasking a >coexistence TAG to write PAR and then a Recommended Practice on >coexistence. Paul mentioned this idea at the Sunday rules meeting; I >liked the idea a lot and it it seemed to have some traction. It's >been the basis of every discussion I've had this week on the purpose >of the coexistence TAG. > >The proposal does say: "First order of business: Define Coexistence >and the Recommended Procedures for establishing whether a draft has >adequately addressed coexistence." Sounds similar to Paul's >suggestion, but I don't like it as such. I think that this kind of >work deserves the full balloting machinery. I also think that, if >successful, the result would be widely influential and therefore >worthwhile as a published IEEE Recommended Practice. > >There seems to be wide recognition that there is no point in trying >to assess whether coexistence has been achieved until there is a >clear and specific view of what that means. Balloted or not, I think >creating this view will take a long time, and it not guaranteed to >reach a result. Given this time delay and uncertainty, I think that >the proposal is ahead of itself in its focus on how it will evaluate >PARs and drafts. I think we should postpone any request for such a >charter until after the TAG has concluded the Recommended Practice on >which it expects to base its evaluations. > >My position on this issue has evolved and is evolving, and I am open >to further enlightenment. However, at the moment, I prefer Paul's >idea. > >Roger > > >At 9:23 AM -0600 02/03/14, Jim Lansford wrote: > >Greetings all, > > Based on discussions within the BoF and among SEC members, > >Tim Blaney and I > >have put together this proposal for a Coexistence TAG for discussion at the >>SEC meeting tomorrow. Feel free to send me comments in advance; I believe >>there is consensus that coexistence is an area IEEE802 needs to address, so >>I want to make sure we set this up in a way everybody can buy into. >Thanks. >>Best regards, >>Jim >> >>P.S. Bob O'Hara - please set aside time on the agenda for Friday PM for >>this, in consultation with Paul. Thanks. >> >>Jim Lansford, Ph.D. >>Phone: +1 405 377 6170 >>Fax: +1 425 671 6099 >>Mobile: +1 405 747 5229 >>SMS: 4057475229@mobile.att.net >>jim.lansford@mobilian.com >>www.mobilian.com >>
COEX-02014r1_Coex-excom-summary-031502.ppt