Jon,
I was a little surprised to see the recommended coexistence wording on
Slide 13, which was very different than the wording in the 802.11 VHT60
PAR which many of us had worked so long to agree on. I had hoped that we
were starting to converge to some standardized coexistence language for
PARs.
Can you explain why the 802.11 WG decided to recommend such different
language to 802.15 on the NAN PAR? Was there something about the type of
wording that we agreed to in the VHT60 PAR that would not be applicable to
the 802.15 NAN PAR?
I think adopting some standardized coexistence language in the PARs would
be strongly preferred to arguing over different language in every PAR.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:21 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Comments to 802.15 from 802.11 on Proposed PARs
Greetings and Salutations!!
802.11 has prepared comments for 802.15 to consider for the PARs proposed
for consideration this week.
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/08/11-08-1351-00-0000-comments-to-802-15-from-802-11-on-pending-pars-novebmer-plenary.ppt
contains the comments for all 3 PARs.
A hard copy has been placed (in compliance to the LMSC P&P) in the folder
for the 802.15 Chair.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Rosdahl
802-11 WG Vice-Chair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl 10871 North 5750 West
hm:801-756-1496 Highland, UT 84003
cell:801-376-6435
office: 801-492-4023
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.