This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
I am posting the email dialogue between myself,
the Task Group P Chair (Lee Armstrong) made at my request to answer Roger’s
points on his vote.
As you can see I agree with Roger’s minor
edits which we would like to amend with, but have an exception to the deleted paragraph
as shown below respectfully.
Regarding the PAR, Bob correctly pointed
to the NesCom PAR site for the approved document, and we take his issues to
heart, and disagree one more time with Rogers’
802.11 WLANs WG
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of America.
Ph : +1 (408)
Fax: +1 (408)
Cell: +1 (408)
From: Roger B. Marks
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Stuart Kerry
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] +++EC
MOTION+++ ENDS 22 OCT+++Approval of IEEE P802.11p news release
I continue to assert that the paragraph is presumptuous. I am not debating
your claim that many interested parties are trying to encourage the result.
However, you don't have a result yet because you don't have a standard. You
have a standardization project. You can't control who comes into it or what
they decide when they ballot. If you declare the result beforehand, you imply
that the process is rigged. That's a bad message to send.
If the consensus develops the way you are certain it will, then you'll
be doing another press release in a few months, declaring victory.
At 18:08 -0400 2004-10-13, Lee Armstrong wrote:
The questionable paragraph refers to using WAVE in the US National ITS
Architecture. I recommend keeping this paragraph for the following reasons.
The PAR does refer to the ITS Architecture, and this is very important for both
political and business reasons. Being an "official" part of ITS means
that there is full support from the US government for deploying this technology
and encouraging its use. This support includes funding for building the
infrastructure throughout the country. This takes it beyond being just a
"good idea" or something a few manufacturers want to push.
The complete PAR entry for question 14 is (emphasis added):
14a. Reason: While there is a priority within North America to support the US National
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architecture, the
intent is to develop an amendment to IEEE 802.11 that will be applicable on a
global basis. The proposed project is coordinated with ISO TC204/WG16 to ensure
global applicability. Within the IEEE 802 context, Wireless Access in Vehicular
refers to what was previously called Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC).
The National ITS
Architecture has identified DSRC as a primary means of communicating between
the roadside and vehicles, and from one vehicle to another.
There are a very large number of applications planned within the ITS domain
(ITS services), including collision avoidance, traveler information, toll
collection, commercial vehicle operations, transit operations, and traffic
management. In addition to these ITS applications, WAVE is expected to support
another very large set of applications that would be of broader interest to
motorists and those interested in providing services to these motorists. Some
of these applications would be using the WAVE device as a means of connecting
the vehicle to the Internet. The US DoT, most of the major automobile
manufacturers, public agencies throughout North America, DSRC device
manufacturers, and many potential service providers have been involved in the
DSRC program and actively support it. Some of the largest automobile manufacturers
are developing plans leading to inclusion as standard equipment on new cars
beginning as soon as possible (as early as the 2008 model year). In addition,
many state and local government agencies are planning to install the roadside
infrastructure. Thus, for North America, plans are already underway that would
result in the widespread deployment of roadside access points and to have WAVE
radios installed in cars, either as built in by the manufacturer or as an
aftermarket installation. In addition, there are rail and transit agencies that
are involved and planning to use these standards.
Saying that this will be implemented as part of the national ITS
program is not presumptuous because it is a combination of the automobile
manufacturers and the US DoT that are pushing for this standard, with hundreds
of millions (some are saying billions) to be spent on it as soon as the
standard can be completed. As for the concern that there is not yet a draft,
there is an existing standard, ASTM E2213-03, that has been excepted by all
parties involved (device manufacturers, automobile industry, and DoT). As
stated in the PAR, this ASTM standard is being used as the basis for P802.11p,
with only those changes necessary to make it a part of 802 instead of being a stand-alone
standard. With this as a basis, the full draft will be presented at the
November meeting and should be ready for balloting shortly thereafter.
At 02:36 PM 10/13/2004 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
Please provide urgently your reactions to the Paragraph Roger has deleted
in the Attached document. This is a 10 day ExCom ballot and therefore I
need your answer immediately.
As to the other changes that Roger has made I can accept.
Stuart J. Kerry
Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of America.
Ph : +1 (408) 474-7356
Fax: +1 (408) 474-5343
Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC MOTION+++ ENDS 22 OCT+++Approval of IEEE
P802.11p news release
I vote Disapprove. I will change my vote to Approve if the changes
indicated in the attachment are made.
In one case, I have added a rationale. In other cases, I can explain
the rationale upon request.
At 22:20 -0400 2004-10-12, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear EC Members,
>This is an email ballot of 10 day duration on the following motion:
>To approve the attached press release prepared by IEEE-SA staff
>the approval of the P802.11p PAR.
>Moved: Stuart Kerry
>Second: Bob Heile
>It opens 11PM edt 12OCT and closes 11PM edt 22 October.
>IEEE 802 Chairman
>----- Original Message -----
>Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:51 PM
>Subject: RE: RE: IEEE P802.11p news release
>>It looks fine to me with Karen's tidy up work. Please start the motion
>>the 802 ExCom.
>>As previously stated Bob Heile seconds this motion.
>>Stuart J. Kerry
>>Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
>>Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
>>1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
>>San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
>>United States of America.
>>Ph : +1 (408) 474-7356
>>Fax: +1 (408) 474-5343
>>Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
>>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:25 PM
>>To: Stuart Kerry; email@example.com
>>Subject: Re: Fw: IEEE P802.11p news release
>>We gave the release a good editorial scrub and attached is the clean
>>version. Please note, since we have described/qualified IEEE P802.11p
>>"standard development project" and " a draft standard
>>development in the first two paragraphs of the release, we can
>>refer (and in proper PR style) to it as "IEEE P802.11p" in
>>the release--to stay consistent, streamlined and avoid introducing
>>confusion by limiting interchanging "standard development
>>"draft standard amendment" as qualifiers (the use of these
was getting a
>>bit overwhelming)--especially since the remainder of the release
>>the standard project in terms of being under development, etc.
>>(See attached file: PR_P802.11pV3.doc)
>>Senior Marketing Manager, IEEE Standards
>>445 Hoes Lane, PO Box 1331
>>Piscataway NJ 08855 USA
>>PH: +1 732 562 3824
>>Think Standards! Think IEEE!
Subject: Fw: IEEE
Please respond to
>>Please give this PR once last editorial scrub, create a new clean
>>and send it to Stuart for review.
>>Stuart, once you approve the clean version, please try to get an EC
>>and I'll issue the EC ballot.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
>>Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
>>Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 4:41 PM
>>Subject: RE: IEEE P802.11p news release
>>>Paul and Karen,
>>>I have modified the press release to show that the contact for the
>>>group is the WG Chair only. With that done, I am happy with the
>>>the release. Therefore I move this motion to you as the 802 ExCom
>>>and for you to call for a second to begin discussion and subsequent
>>>approval process in an 802 ExCom Electronic Ballot of the committee
>>>P.S. Modified release attached
>>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:email@example.com]
>>>Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:11 AM
>>>To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>>>Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
>>>Subject: Re: IEEE P802.11p news release
>>>Before we send this out to the EC for approval I made several
>>>and added a quote from me. The corrections are mostly making
>>>reader that it is clear that a PROJECT was approved to develop a
>>>STANDARD. We need to be careful in the future to ensure we
>>>distinction in future releases of approved projects.
>>>If I have not included all the right people on this email for
>>>approval of my suggested changes, please include the necessary
>>>and then resubmit the request for an EC motion to me.
>>>Also, just to be clear, the EC motion needs to be made and seconded
>>>members (typically the WG Chair and another). I cannot begin
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
>>>Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:36 AM
>>>Subject: IEEE P802.11p news release
>>>>Working with Lee Armstrong we have developed a news release on
>>>>the IEEE 802.11p standard. It's attached and "ready"
for the EC
>>>>(See attached file: PR_P802.11pV1.doc)
>>>>Senior Marketing Manager, IEEE Standards
>>>>445 Hoes Lane, PO Box 1331
>>>>Piscataway NJ 08855 USA
>>>>PH: +1 732 562 3824
>>>>Think Standards! Think IEEE!
>>(See attached file: SJK Modified PR_P802 11pV2.doc)
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>Attachment converted: Little Al:PR_P802.11pV3.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00230FC0)
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
list is maintained by Listserv.
Armstrong Consulting, Inc.
454 Walnut Street
Newton, MA 02460
(P) 617 244 9203
(F) 617 244 9204
(C) 617 620 1701