Re: [802SEC] Statement from 802.16 WG to 802.18 TAG on IMT-Advanced requirements issue
I have no knowledge of the "letter" of the agreement, because I
haven't seen anything in writing yet. However, do I think that
802.16's proposal is in accordance with the discussion in 802.18 last
week, as I understood it.
Regarding the question of whether a specific time should be allocated
for 802.18 approval, I don't recall this being discussed explicitly.
Perhaps I have forgotten. I do recall, however, the discussion that
the EC ballot should be long enough to allow a simultaneous WG Letter
Ballot during the EC ballot, should such a ballot be appropriate for
a WG. Note that the 802.16 proposal provides for an 18 day EC ballot.
802.16 thought this would be enough time for WG's to run a ballot
(which, according to the P&P, needs to be at least 15 days).
I believe that 802.16 was under the impression that 802.18 could, if
it chose to, run its own 15-day ballot during the same interval. To
my knowledge, this is in accordance with the 802 P&P and doesn't
require the creation of any new procedures.
There is a second way that 802.18 could "formally approve" the output
document in accordance with 802.16's proposed schedule. Namely, a TAG
Chair is empowered to conduct business at teleconferences. So it
seems reasonable that, after a long series of weekly consensus-
building telecons, 802.18 might be in a position to "formally
approve" the output document in such a teleconference.
I'm not sure I understand your comment about "no less time". However,
regarding your reference to "802.18 plus the extended group including
WG chairs," it was my impression that the relevant WG Chairs were to
be counted as members of 802.18. I'm sure that Mike can clarify.
On Mar 19, 2007, at 04:53 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> In reviewing the statement posted at the site noted below one is
> struck immediatly by the fact that no approval by 802.18 is
> included in the process no less time for 802.18 plus the extended
> group including WG chairs that have expressed an interst in the IMT-
> Advanced requirements. Thus it seems to contradict both the letter
> and spirit of what was agreed to in Orlando.
> Arnie Greenspan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> To: mjlynch@NORTEL.COM
> Cc: stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG
> Sent: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 1:19 AM
> Subject: [802SEC] Statement from 802.16 WG to 802.18 TAG on IMT-
> Advanced requirements issue
> The IEEE 802.16 has approved a statement to the 802.18 TAG
> regarding the IMT-Advanced requirements issue:
> I hope you find it to be a useful contribution to the activity.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.