Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 29 MAR+++ motion to approve contributi...
Dear EC Members,
I have reviewed the proposed liaison and some of the email
traffic with regard to it.
I am prepared to approve the letter with the following
1) While I have sympathy for the addition wrt 802.20 that
Joanne requested at the EC, I believe it may be inappropriate
for the EC to add it as an editorial change. If the removal
of this phrase is needed to get majority approval it
should be removed.
While it is obvious to me that 802.20 should want to be
included in any such work, it is their responsability to
bring forth such a letter. Should it be removed, I
encourage Joanne to send such a liaison at the next 802.20
session and I look forward to observing the result.
2) The following is a nit, and I am prepared to
follow the majority if its a no-op to them.
802.17 had many communications with ITU-T SG 15 over
the course of our development. We tended to refer to
Draft P802.17 or Draft P802.17-DX.Y (whatever the current
revision) rather then Draft 802.17-????. I believe
it is more correct to refer to Draft 802.16e (or Draft
802.16e.LocalDraftNamingConvention) as there will never be
a Draft 802.16e-200X since the suffic is added once it is
approved as a standard.
3) I believe that the removal of "and regulatory" from
the phrase "technical and regulatory experts" is appropriate
unless Mr. Lynch can state that his group had reviewed
and approved the liaison.
4) As to the overlap of scope with 802.16e and 802.20 I
was reminding by Gary Robinson at the 802-SAB joint meeting
that the original reason for the existance of dot groups was
overlap of scope on basic wired MACs and the inability of a
single MAC to be selected in 802.
So the fact that the projects have some overlap is nothing
new to 802 and I don't see it as a reason to delay an
ongoing liaison activity.
> I vote disapprove.
> I object to the additional of the below sentence in the revision of the
> proposed letter. The sentence implies the support of the 802.20 Working
> Group for this letter. The members of 802.20 had no opportunity to
> review this letter at the Plenary. I ask that this sentence be removed
> as an editorial revision. There were at least two requests from 802.20
> members as observers at the EC meeting including the request for adding
> this sentence and a request to remove the last paragraph of the letter.
> However, without a review by all the 802.20 members I cannot support
> this addition.
> "Additionally, the IEEE 802.20 Working Group is developing mobile
> broadband wireless standards that, upon their completion, may be
> submitted to Working Party 8A. "
> I also object to sending this letter that puts forward a recommendation
> for a standard that is not finished and formally approved. Additionally,
> the specification is not freely available to all the member states of
> the ITU yet. Therefore, the letter should not be sent until the above
> steps are complete.
> The below phrase in the letter implies there was a cross Working Group
> review of the content included in this letter. I saw no announcement of
> such a review at the Plenary. It states it was prepared by regulatory
> experts. Given Mike Lynch's second of the motion, it implies that 802.18
> approved this letter. I do not believe 802.18 voted an approval of this
> letter. However, I will defer to MIke for an answer on this point.
> "The content herein was prepared by a group of technical and regulatory
> experts in IEEE 802......"
> Finally, the letter does again clearly point out the overlap that the
> revised 802.16e PAR has created with the 802.20 Working Group scope and
> Given the above points and my statements at the EC meeting, I vote
> Jerry Upton
> Chair, 802.20
> In a message dated 3/19/2005 11:07:50 AM Central Standard Time,
> paul.nikolich@ATT.NET writes:
> Dear EC Members,
> This is a email ballot to make a determination on the below motion.
> Motion: "To approve IEEE 802.16-05/028r2 with the intent to submit
> to ITU-R
> as an IEEE contribution, subject to editorial revision."
> Moved: Roger Marks
> Second: Mike Lynch
> The ballot opens noon ET Saturday 19 March 2005 and closes Tuesday
> 29 March
> --Paul Nikolich
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger B. Marks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Cc: <mjlynch@NORTELNETWORKS.COM>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:40 PM
> Subject: request for 10-day EC ballot
> > Paul,
> > I request a 10-day EC ballot on the following motion:
> > "To approveas an intended contribution from
> > IEEE to ITU-R, subject to editorial revision".
> > The document title is "Proposed Working Document towards a
> > Preliminary Draft New Recommendation ITU-R M.[8A/BWA]".
> > This issue was deferred from a motion at the EC meeting today.
> > Mr. Lynch seconds the motion.
> > Regards,
> > Roger
> 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.
Michael Takefman email@example.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.