Re: +++ SEC BALLOT #2 ON FCC SUBMISION (DS Test)
Similar to my vote on SEC BALLOT #1, I vote disapprove on this ballot.
The disapprove is on the grounds the letter to the FCC is written in a way
that it gives the incorrect impression the entire 802 membership has
analyzed the NPRM and come to the conclusions presented in the letter. The
letter should be revised to accurately characterize the fact that a subset
of 802.11 voted in favor of the positions developed in the letter. The
multiple references to 'the Committee' in the letter should be changed to
'xxx members of the Working Groups 802.11'.
Additionally, the letter should be revised to more crisply support the
position of the members of 802.11 along the lines of what Roger Marks
suggested on the other ballot.
At 09:47 AM 9/28/99 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
>SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/28Sept1999
>Issue Date: 28Sept1999 Closing Date: 1October1999
>Moved By: Vic Hayes
>Seconded By: Bob Heile
>Move: Authorize responding from IEEE 802 to the FCC NPRM (Docket No. 99-231)
>with doc.: 11-99/210-r4 (in principal). Approved by 802.11 EMAIL ballot:
>69-Yes, 2-No, 3-Abstain.
>This letter states that "The Committee supports the CW jammer test,
>together with the additional requirement for mathematical justification for
>systems utilizing codes with less than 10 chips as proposed in paragraph 15
>and advises the Commission of our concerns regarding an alternative Gaussian
>noise test as proposed in paragraph 14. Members of the Committee have
>performed extensive analysis and technical trade-off studies that were
>discussed at the IEEE 802.11 Interim Meeeting (Santa Rosa, 13-17 September
>1999) to ensure that its 2.4 GHz high data rate waveform adheres to the
>processing Gain requirement of at least 10dB.2 As a result of these
>studies, it has concluded that the processing Gain test using the CW jamming
>test as proposed in paragraph 15 of the Notice is a valid method to confirm
>the processing gain requirement.
>Approval is requested for this letter (in principal) to allow for editing by
>Vic Hayes, Bob Heile and Jim Carlo based on various comments (including IEEE
>staff) being provided. The letter needs to be submitted to the FCC by
>If you want to see the document 99/209 in its entirety, please go to the web
>Attachment Converted: "c:\My