Re: [802SEC] revised P802.16m PAR, and comment responses
Thanks for changing the wording so that it is clear that this
project does not prevent any other working group from preparing a
standard for submission to the ITU-R for IMT-Advanced.
The new wording works for me.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] revised P802.16m PAR, and comment responses
On Thursday night, the 802.16 WG approved the PAR and Five Criteria
as submitted to the EC on Wednesday:
Afterwards, we discussed your email, which arrived during our Closing
It is my firm view that the WG had no intent that the PAR "prevents
another working group from initiating a project to prepare a standard
for submission to the ITU for IMT-Advanced." I can assure you that
the WG recognizes that this would be completely inappropriate. In
fact, the WG made specific efforts to ensure clarity on this point.
For example, it wrote in the Distinct Identity element of the Five
Criteria the following:
"In order to address this and other ITU-R M.1645 elements, such as
the distribution layer, the hotspot layer, the personal network layer
and the fixed (wired) layer, other IEEE 802 groups have the
opportunity to develop their own submissions for the ITU-R. M.1645
envisions the use of multiple coordinated technologies, therefore
other IEEE 802 media and interworking standards may be suited to
address specific parts of the M.1645 structure."
While the WG intended to be clear on this point, it appears that you
remain unsatisfied. Recognizing your continued concerns with Item
7.1, the WG passed this motion by vote of 88/0/4:
"That the WG Chair be authorized to make changes to IEEE
802.16-06/054r2 and IEEE 802.16-06/055r3 to resolve EC concerns,
including clarification of 7.1."
Accordingly, I have reviewed the 7.1 language and would like to know
if you would be satisfied by the replacement of the sentence:
"Other IEEE 802 projects may target aspects of IMT-Advanced, but the
scope of this standard is expected to be unique within IEEE 802."
"Other IEEE 802 groups have the opportunity to target aspects of IMT-
Please let me know.
On Nov 16, 2006, at 08:40 PM, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
> I reviewed the new 16m PAR and I am now clearer on one item but
> am unclear on one new item and concerned about another item.
> The Scope of the PAR now clearly states that 16m is only for
> licensed operation and so I understand why the 5C says that the
> group will not develop a coexistence assurance document.
> The Scope of the PAR includes the sentence,
> "It addresses the cellular layer requirements of IMT-Advanced
> next generation mobile networks as specified in Rec. ITU-R M.1645."
> I am unclear what the phrase "cellular layer" means. Does this
> mean a new PHY will be developed? Does this mean a new MAC will be
> developed? Does this mean a higher layer (layer 3) will be developed
> and included in 16m?
> My biggest concern is the following sentence in Section 7.1 of
> the PAR,
> "Other IEEE 802 projects may target aspects of IMT-Advanced, but
> the scope of this standard is expected to be unique within IEEE 802."
> I cannot support a PAR from one working group in IEEE 802 that
> prevents another working group from initiating a project to prepare a
> standard for submission to the ITU for IMT-Advanced.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:07 PM
> To: Vivek Gupta; Tony Jeffree; Stuart J. Kerry; Shellhammer, Steve;
> Marks Roger; Paul Nikolich; Mike Takefman (tak); Michael Lynch;
> Matthew; John Hawkins; Geoff Thompson; Everett Rigsbee O; Carl
> Stevenson; firstname.lastname@example.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat Thaler;
> Cc: SEC
> Subject: revised P802.16m PAR, and comment responses
> [Folks: I have posted this to the EC reflector, but I am not getting
> the confirmation email allowing me to post. Therefore, I am sending
> directly to the EC members.
> Dear EC,
> Thank you for your comments on the P802.16m PAR and Five Criteria.
> Please see the WG responses on the local networks:
> Response to Comments on Draft 802.16m PAR from Steve Shellhammer:
> Response to Comments on 802.16m PAR from IEEE 802 Chair
> Response to Comments on 802.16m PAR from IEEE 802.15 WG
> Response to Comments on 802.16m PAR and Five Criteria from 802.20
> Response to Comments on 802.16m PAR from IEEE 802.11 WG
> The PAR has been revised and is posted:
> The same is true of the Five Criteria:
> Please let me know if you would like me to visit your WG or TAG to
> discuss the changes.
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.