Re: [802SEC] Confusion regarding document 18-15/0016
James:
If the purpose of the report was solely to select a proposal I would agree with your point 2). This Tiger Team was to show the FCC that we, IEEE802 took the initiative to try to solve a difficult problem. That was a rousing success and buys us favor with the US regulator. Sending a report that shows that we could not solve the problem, but in the future we should be given serious consideration in any sharing efforts. Not sending it looks like we have something to hide, seeing as it is a public document.
Please vote YES.
Rich Kennedy
Manager, New Technology Development
MediaTek Inc.
rich.kennedy@mediatek.com
(832) 298-1114
Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum & Regulatory TG Chair
Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces TTG Chair
Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces MTG Vice-chair
IEEE802.11 TGaf (WLAN in White Spaces) Chair
IEEE802.11/15 Regulatory SC Chair
IEEE 802.11/18 Liaison
Sent from my awesome BlackBerry Passport
Original Message
From: James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:51 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: James P. K. Gilb
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Confusion regarding document 18-15/0016
Mike
Any position that IEEE 802 takes needs to approved by the EC, not
developed solely by the Sponsor Chair.
If we approve "the report of the results of the Tiger Team" it means
that EC agrees with its conclusions, unless it explicitly states in the
document that the EC does not. If that is the case, I don't see why the
EC would vote on it.
The question is: What is the position that the EC is taking. From what
I have heard it it this:
1) IEEE 802 convened a Tiger Team to work with DSRC
2) Despite fruitful conversation in a collaborative atmosphere, the
group failed to come to consensus (75% approval) of a final report.
3) The 802 EC does not take any position regarding a particular
coexistence method, but would like to make the FCC aware of the report,
which can be found at http://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/documents/....
Thanks for you time, <insert polite phrases here>
And a letter containing that information is all that we should vote on
or send to the FCC. The IEEE 802 community has developed positions that
have the support of 75% of a WG, approval by IEEE 802.18 and the EC that
we have communicated to the FCC. I don't think we should dilute the
force of our opinion by forwarding a document for which we don't have
consensus.
IMHO (and I may be alone in this opinion).
But, it is also possible that I am missing something here.
James Gilb
On 03/16/2015 02:07 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:
> James,
>
> Agreed that we should make clear that IEEE 802 is eager to support
> coexistence methods with other standards and primary users in all
> bands. Since we may want to avoid further editing of the report that
> can be left to the IEEE 802 Sponsor's cover letter/letter of
> transmittal to the FCC. That document is Paul's to attach when he
> forwards the report to the FCC. I am somewhat reluctant to "put"
> words into Paul's mouth. The cover letter/letter of conveyance can
> and should reflect his views of the DSRC report. If he agrees we can
> leave it to him to develop the cover letter and not put it up for EC
> approval. It is simply the means of conveying to the FCC what the
> DSRC report represents. It should give the IEEE 802 Sponsor ample
> opportunity to show that IEEE 802 is not endorsing the report; it
> simply represents the proceedings of the Tiger Team.
>
> There is, of course, the report of the results of the Tiger Team. I
> totally agree that we need to make plain that IEEE 802 does not
> endorse any particular conclusions in the report. What we are
> providing is simply a report of what the Tiger Team's work was. That
> clarification can be provided in the cover letter/letter of
> transmittal that Paul will add to the report.
>
> If the latter is acceptable then we will ballot a single document,
> the Tiger Team Report. Or are there other views on this? Simply
> balloting the Tiger Team Report, while allowing Paul the latitude to
> develop the cover letter, may be the simplest way forward.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: James Gilb [mailto:jpgilb@gmail.com]
> On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb Sent: 16 March, 2015 15:46 To: Michael
> Lynch; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Confusion
> regarding document 18-15/0016
>
> Mike
>
> If you want to forward both to the FCC, then I think it should be
> clear in both documents the status with respect to IEEE 802, i.e.,
> that is a report of the Tiger Team's work and that IEEE 802 does not
> endorse any particular conclusions in the report.
>
> IMHO: We should add that IEEE 802 is eager to support coexistence
> methods with other standards and primary users in all bands, or some
> similar language.
>
> James Gilb
>
> On 03/16/2015 11:38 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> I think that I hear you saying that a redrafted cover letter should
>> also be balloted. Presumably that could be done separately from the
>> report itself, as a second document to be balloted. Or do you see
>> it as included as a part of the report.
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From:
>> James P. K. Gilb<mailto:gilb@ieee.org> Sent: 3/16/2015 13:26
>> To:
>> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>>
>>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Confusion regarding document 18-15/0016
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>> One thing that I thought was confusing and perhaps not well stated
>> in the the document was that this is a report and does not
>> represent the consensus of IEEE 802 or any of its Working Groups.
>> The former requires 2/3 and the latter 75% approval.
>>
>> I think a summary of the results of the task is appropriate to
>> issue from the EC, but it should be clear in the cover letter and
>> document that this is a report of activity but not a conclusion or
>> endorsement.
>>
>> As you state, showing that the IEEE 802 community wants to work
>> with other stakeholders to share frequency bands is a very good
>> thing. That should be stated in the cover letter as well.
>>
>> It is not clear to me at this time that the cover letter and
>> document stated these things clearly. It could be that I simply
>> missed where they were in the documents.
>>
>> James Gilb
>>
>> On 03/13/2015 08:51 AM, Rich Kennedy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> All:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What the 802.18 Chair should have presented is an explanation of
>>> the project, and what this document represents. This is now going
>>> to become a reflector review and approval, so let me take this
>>> early step of explaining what this document is all about.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. In a 2013 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the FCC
>>> proposed unlicensed sharing of the U-NII-4 band (5850-5925 MHz).
>>> This band currently has an allocation for Dedicated Short Range
>>> Devices (DSRC) for the Intelligent Transport Systems, which
>>> currently uses a version of IEEE 802.11p as its wireless
>>> technology.
>>>
>>> 2. This sharing would be regulated under the rules of FCC
>>> Part 15, which means we cannot interfere with the ITS because it
>>> has a primary allocation. In order for us to engage the DSRC
>>> community to find a sharing mechanism they would approve, I set
>>> up a Tiger Team comprised of members of the WLAN community and
>>> the DSRC community.
>>>
>>> 3. There were two major reasons for this approach
>>>
>>> a. There was a chance we could define a mechanism that they
>>> would be able to accept as not harmful to their safety-of-life
>>> network, and we would share with DSRC in a similar fashion to our
>>> sharing in other bands with radars, FSS installations, etc.
>>>
>>> b. We had to show the FCC that we were willing to work with
>>> the DSRC, as the FCC would be responsible for letting us share,
>>> so they were very concerned that this be a solution that both
>>> sides agreed to. This tends to foster good relations with the
>>> regulator. With many more bands queued up for sharing, I felt
>>> that building trust with the FCC was critical for this, and for
>>> future sharing opportunities. The FCC Chairman even mentioned our
>>> Tiger Team on a couple of occasions, asking that a Senate bill to
>>> rush opening of the upper 5 GHz band wait for results from our
>>> effort.
>>>
>>> 4. After 20 months of trying to reach an agreement, which
>>> almost happened last November, it became clear that the two sides
>>> could not agree on a solution. At that point I asked the Tiger
>>> Team chair to gather some opinions from both sides, which he did
>>> with a series of straw polls.
>>>
>>> 5. I did not ask the Regulatory SC to vote to approve the
>>> report, which draws no conclusions, make no suggestion and states
>>> only that a compromise could not be reached. In a small group,
>>> any concerned party can find enough votes to avoid approving the
>>> report. Especially one as small as 802.18. I therefore asked the
>>> full 802.11 WG to vote, so it truly represented the undistorted
>>> view of the full WG. Here it passed by 53-48; in the SC a straw
>>> poll was noticeably different.
>>>
>>> 6. The 802.11 WG motion read: Believing that the report in
>>> document 11-15/0347r0 represents the work of the DSRC Coexistence
>>> Tiger Team, forward it to 802.18 for approval to send to the EC
>>> for its approval and submittal to the FCC. ".represents the work
>>> of the Tiger Team", which it factually did.
>>>
>>> 7. By sending the report to the FCC, where we clearly state
>>> that no consensus was reached, but that we tried hard to reach
>>> one, we still could show the FCC our good faith effort. In the
>>> RR-TAG vote, we were forced to remove section 11, because straw
>>> poll results were slightly skewed towards the DSRC preferred
>>> mechanism, and some members wanted to take it out because they
>>> felt that slight edge could be misinterpreted. However, it was
>>> clearly stated in the report that 57% of the straw poll
>>> respondents were from the DSRC side.
>>>
>>> 8. The motion to approve sending the report was simply an
>>> effort to send the full results of the Tiger Team work to the
>>> FCC. There was no IEEE endorsement and no conclusions.
>>>
>>> 9. When we removed section 11 and added the note to the
>>> abstract that there was no (Tiger Team) consensus among the
>>> participants, we created a new document with this clean version:
>>> 18-15/0016r0. This should have been motioned at the EC meeting;
>>> not the r1 version. I was told that an EC member was going to ask
>>> us to remove two references that were orphaned when section 11
>>> was removed, so rather than take EC time to edit the document, I
>>> created a version that deleted those references. While doing that
>>> I made an editorial change, removing the line numbering along the
>>> left side of the text. Otherwise it is identical to r0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the 802.18 Chair did not explain any of this, and
>>> I apologize for the confusion it caused.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope you use this email as a starting point for your review of
>>> the Tiger Team report, and vote to approve sending it to the
>>> FCC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rich Kennedy
>>>
>>> Manager, New Technology Development
>>>
>>> <http://www.mediatek.com/> MediaTek Inc.
>>>
>>> <mailto:rich.kennedy@mediatek.com> rich.kennedy@mediatek.com
>>>
>>> (832) 298-1114
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum & Regulatory TG Chair
>>>
>>> Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces TTG Chair
>>>
>>> Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces MTG Vice-chair
>>>
>>> IEEE802.11 TGaf (WLAN in White Spaces) Chair
>>>
>>> IEEE802.11/15 Regulatory SC Chair
>>>
>>> IEEE 802.11/18 Liaison
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- 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.