Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] Statement from 802.16 WG to 802.18 TAG on IMT-Advanced requirements issue
Arnie,
I also support Steve's proposal.
802.16's proposed schedule indicates its interest in having a
schedule. It proposed its draft based on its understanding of the
discussions in 802.18 and its review of the deadlines and time
scales. I hope it was a useful contribution to the activity.
Regards,
Roger
On Mar 19, 2007, at 06:26 PM, amgrrg@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Roger:
>
> I am impressed by the fact that you don't seem to sleep and are
> ever vigilant at computer-side to immediately respond to E-mails.
> That asside I have an uneasy feeling that a continual testing of
> the waters is taking place to see what can happen outside the
> bounds of inclusiveness that I beleve is desired and expected. I
> certainly endorse the idea of a schedule showing when the votes are
> to take place and ALL other relevant details.
>
> Arnie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sshellha@qualcomm.com
> To: mjlynch@NORTEL.COM
> Cc: r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Sent: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 8:13 PM
> Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] Statement from 802.16 WG to 802.18
> TAG on IMT-Advanced requirements issue
>
> Mike, May I suggest that you put together a schedule showing
> when the votes are to take place and all other relevant
> details? That way we will all have a common schedule to work
> from. Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: ***** IEEE 802
> Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On
> Behalf Of Roger B. Marks Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:39 PM To:
> STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.orgSubject: Re: [802SEC] Statement from
> 802.16 WG to 802.18 TAG on IMT-Advanced requirements issue Hello,
> Arnie. 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. Regards, Roger On Mar 19, 2007, at
> 04:53 PM, amgrrg@aol.com wrote: > ,Gentemen: > > 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:
> r.b.marks@ieee.org> 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 > > Mike, > > The IEEE 802.16 has approved a
> statement to the 802.18 TAG > regarding the IMT-Advanced
> requirements issue: > http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/
> L80216-07_018r2.pdf> > I hope you find it to be a useful
> contribution to the activity. > > 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.
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
> free from AOL at AOL.com.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.