| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear SEC,
In the past week, so far Mat Sherman has been the only one to weigh in on the minimal distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG projects on Mobility. This is an important topic – one that will benefit from discussion on the SEC reflector. I’m sure there are more opinions on this subject than just Mat’s—let’s air them on the reflector so that we are better prepared to make an informed decision on how to proceed during our plenary session.
Remember, the major reasons for requiring PARs to be submitted 30 days in advance of the plenary was to permit enough time for discussion and debate. Let’s take advantage of the time.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
-----Original Message-----
Hi Paul & Everyone,
I actually have a lot of strong opinions here, but prefer to be brief for now. Perhaps I'll get boo'd, but I've always been very pro "let the market decide". In a perfect world, I think only the ECSG PAR should go forward, since in my mind it has the broader scope (allows solutions other than 802.16), and then the 802.16 folks should propose a solution within the ECSG group based on 802.16. The ECSG PAR might require a few small updates to absorb any minor outages from the 802.16 PAR but I doubt that's an issue. However, I recognize that if people don't find an outlet in 802, they will probably take it somewhere else. Even if we force them to merge, they would either try to split later, or (as seems to be the rule these days) come up with a let's do both standard. So procedurally, I think we should make sure the PARs are distinct it their goals (usually it's not that hard to find some trivial distinction). We should probably encourage them to have close ties and consider merging if at all possible along the way. But I feel we should let both go forward if at all possible.
Mat Matthew Sherman
|