RE: [802SEC] re: Reply Comments on 5 GHZ NPRM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 2:57 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] re: Reply Comments on 5 GHZ NPRM
> I question the need for IEEE 802 to include such a paragraph in its
> reply comments, simply to appease a single member of one of
> the working
> groups. Our document is to reflect the consensus of 802, not
> the interests of a single member.
Due to the timing (no EC meeting, no time for a
full-out electronic ballot, tight on the 5 day
review for TAG filing), the filing will not be
"802" but an 802.18 filing.
I agree whole-heartedly that our goal is not to
appease any single member of one of the working groups,
but to reflect the consensus of the 802 wireless
However, to repeat, we said the same thing in our
original comments, and thus, the paragraph does
represent the consensus of 802 ...
So in the interest of maintaining 802.18's relationship
with 802.16 and to *increase* the consensus on the
reply comments filing, I think it's appropriate to add
Had the member from .16 been present in Singapore,
I'm sure that 802.18 would not have had a problem
including the proposed paragraph before the doc
was approved and submitted for EC review.
I hope that this response adequately addresses your
If you have questions that would be more easily answered
in a conversation, please feel free to call me.
Carl R. Stevenson
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
610-965-8799 (home office)
610-712-3217 (fax mailbox)
Short Message Service: firstname.lastname@example.org