Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Roger,
I believe that there are conflicting interests in 802 on the subject of
this document. It would benefit some working groups to have this
document submitted, to the detriment of other working groups. Since
802.18 may be perceived as voicing a common position for all wireless
working groups, I think this is an important point to discuss.
The point I was trying to make, with little success apparently, is that
802.18 should not be submitting a position document advocating the
change of the EC position on the use of this band for IMT-2000 that is
currently limited in the scope of allowed technology to become
"technology neutral". It is my belief that by advocating this position
802.18 is requesting the EC to change a position that is currently
beneficial to some 802 working groups to a different position that is
detrimental to those working groups and beneficial to others.
If I misunderstand the benefits of the current EC position and those of
the position that 802.18 is advocating, I hope that Mike will enlighten
me.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:56 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Bob,
I guessed that's what you meant, but I still don't understand your
point. So, let me ask:
>Since 802 has working groups that develop standards for both unlicensed
and licensed bands
What is the relevance of this fact? Do you mean that, for this reason,
802.18 should have no position on the use of licensed bands?
>I find it curious that 802.18 is advocating this position
What position is it that you find curious?
>when the EC has indicated that it leans toward a single technology in
this band
I'm confused. It seems to me that the EC is, to a large degree, asking
for comments on whether the band should be used for a single technology.
802.18 is saying, in essence, that it should not. You seem to be saying
that 802.18 should not take such a position because the EC is leaning
the other way. I don't think this is what you mean, but I can't tell.
Maybe either you or I have some misunderstanding of the subject. I did
some research to figure out exactly what prompted this 802.18 document.
The source, I believe, is here:
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/radio_spectrum/current/i
ndex_en.htm
Search on that page for "2.6 GHz".
Roger
At 09:28 -0700 2005-09-22, boohara@CISCO.COM wrote:
>Hmmm... Reading this after it was reflected back to me, I realize that
>"EC" is ambiguous. My meaning is "European Commission".
>
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob O'Hara [boohara@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:51 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
>
>Mike,
>
>Since 802 has working groups that develop standards for both unlicensed
>and licensed bands, I find it curious that 802.18 is advocating this
>position when the EC has indicated that it leans toward a single
>technology in this band. Can you provide me with some of the reasoning
>that led .18 to come to this conclusion?
>
>Also, I have not seen an answer to the question asked of you on how
many
>members of 802.18 were present at the vote approving the document. Can
>you provide that answer?
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Lynch [mailto:mjlynch@NORTEL.COM]
>Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:03 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] Five day approval process
>
>Please find enclosed 802.18's comments in response to the European
>Commission 2.6 GHz consultation. The comment period closes 15 September
>but the membership believes it is beneficial to file a response. This
>was approved by unanimous consent.
>I would like to be able to forward this the European Commission on 25
>September.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>
>+1 972 814 4901
>
> <<18-05-0033-r0-0000-EC_2.6GHz_Band_Consultation Response.doc>>
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.