Re: [802SEC] 802.11 response to comments on two PARS
James,
As I explained during the closing 802.15 WG session, the VHT SG considered all of your comments and included language appropriate for a PAR that addressed all of your comments. The SG was told that having 802.15.3c in the scope would not be acceptable. The coexistance language says coexistance with other 60 GHz systems will have to be addressed to complete the standard. The additional explanatory notes explains what is intended.
I do agree that other similar 60 GHz efforts should have been included with a Yes on 7.1. However, the VHT SG did not have proper guidance from leadership as to whether this would imply more than just similar.
I respecfully which to note to the EC that all of the comments provided were addressed and explanations provided at 802.15 WG closing session. This included asking the chair of the 802.15.3c task group to access the updated PAR (he did not have it on his system locally) to show where changes were made. Statements like yours that all of your comments were rejected is blatently false and not a respectfull and cooperative response from someone who should have a broader perspective as a member of the EC.
Regards, John
________________________________
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG on behalf of James Gilb
Sent: Thu 7/17/2008 2:06 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 response to comments on two PARS
All
Thanks for the consideration of my comments. Essentially all my
comments were rejected.
I was surprised that the group did not list 802.15.3c as a project that
is similar is scope (which it clearly is). Ecma TC48 should have also
been referenced. This is not only an easy change, it is clear that it
is the correct answer.
Most important, however, is the statement of coexistence. The history
of the 802 wireless groups is that coexistence is only taken seriously
when the group is forced to do it. This is not something that is
limited to a single wireless group, rather it is likely due to the fact
that we are all busy and work very hard to develop our standards.
Addressing coexistence takes time that we often don't feel we have.
In my opinion, the PAR should acknowledge the existing standards in
development and include a strong statement that requires the TG to
address coexistence with these standards.
James Gilb
Jon Rosdahl wrote:
> https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/08/11-08-0880-01-0vht-reponse-to-official-comments.ppt
>
> This response document was posted just prior to noon and was approved by the 802.11 WG.
> If you have any further questions or comments Please let Bruce, Eldad or I know.
> Respectfully submitted,
> Jon Rosdahl
> WG11 VC
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Rosdahl 10871 North 5750 West
> hm:801-756-1496 Highland, UT 84003
> cell:801-376-6435
>
> A Job is only necessary to eat!
> A Family is necessary to be happy
>
> ----------
> 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.