|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
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, email@example.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: firstname.lastname@example.org > 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, email@example.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: > firstname.lastname@example.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.