Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F
I'm also confused about what you are saying here, even though I am a
principal party. Other EC members may really be in the dark.
In particular, you said that "the chair of 802.16 has announced his
intention of making a separate submittal to WP8F other than the joint
submittal administered by 802.18 at the direction of the EC". I think
it is important to be specific here. Could you tell me, for instance,
what I announced, and when, and to whom? I can speculate as to your
meaning (see point (2) below), but it would probably be helpful to
the EC if they were not forced to speculate.
When you say that "separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and
contrary to the express direction of the EC," are you referring to
the P&P (Clause 14.2, as noted by Pat)? If not, when and where else
does the EC provide an "express direction" regarding submittals to
Over the years, the 802.16 WG has initiated many contributions that
went from IEEE to ITU-R. Some of these went to WP 8F. Of course, 8F
has been disbanded, but I won't get too hung up on that issue since
its work will undoubtedly be assigned to another WP. Still, I am not
sure what topics you are addressing. What is the topic of the "the
joint submittal administered by 802.18" you mentioned?
Let's consider two particular topics that formerly fell under 8F.
Both are related to IMT-Advanced:
(1) Contributions of comments regarding the IMT-Advanced technical
The IEEE 802.16 Working Group has participated actively with the
802.18 TAG toward reaching consensus contributions. It did so in
preparation for the previous regularly-scheduled meeting of WP 8F (in
May). In July, you volunteered to second a proposal that Mr.
Stevenson offered as an email motion <http://ieee802.org/secmail/
msg09626.html> "that individual WGs be prohibited by the EC from
presenting individual, potentially differing, inputs to ITU-R"
regarding IMT-Advanced. The EC Chair ruled this motion out of order
"since it is direct conflict with 802 P&P sections 14.1 and 14.2
which grant WGs an TAGs the ability to communicate directly with
standards bodies and government bodies" <http://ieee802.org/secmail/
msg09570.html>. The Chair also said that "it does seem reasonable for
the 802 WGs and TAGs to provide an IEEE 802 communication to the ITU-
R IMT-Advanced activity if possible and I would encourage them to do
To summarize the followup to that discussion, the 802.16 WG continued
to follow the EC Chair's encouragement. It has not proposed to
develop its own standalone input on this topic. In fact, in
September, it submitted two contributions to the IEEE 802.18 TAG on
the issue. One proposed that 802.18 develop input to ITU-R on IMT-
Advanced evaluation criteria as well as IMT-Advanced technical
requirements, and it proposed specific procedures and schedules to
encourage efficient development of contributions by the November
Plenary. The other offered detailed comments. These contributions
were copied to the EC <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg09626.html>. To
my knowledge, 802.18 received no other contributions on the IMT-
Advanced topic for consideration in its September meeting. 802.18
decided to continue development before the November Plenary. To my
understanding, only the 802.16 and 802.11 WGs contributed to that
effort, which resulted in two drafts that were posted today.
Is this "the joint submittal administered by 802.18" that you
mentioned? If so, then I don't see any sign of the "intent" you
believe I announced. On the contrary, I conclude that 802.16 has been
active in supporting 802.18, on a voluntary basis, in the development
of submittals intended as IEEE contributions regarding IMT-Advanced
technical comments and evaluation criteria. So perhaps you were not
thinking of this topic.
(2) Contributions of technical proposed regarding the content of IMT-
The issue of whether IEEE 802.18 would try, in the future, to
coordinate a joint contribution of a specific technical standard or
standards as an element of IMT-Advanced recommendations was discussed
within 802.18 during the July Plenary. Various views were stated, and
no decision was reached <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg09526.html>.
The 802.16 WG followed up with a contribution (IEEE L802.16-07/061)
to the 802.18 Radio Regulatory TAG's September session, copying the
EC <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg09626.html>. It is possible that
you were referring to this document when you said that I announced my
intention. But please note that this contribution was not an
announcement by the WG Chair; it identified itself as a statement
"from the 802.16 Working Group." Its purpose was "to share our views
on the development/coordination of 802 radio interface technology
submission(s) to ITU-R for IMT-Advanced."
This document IEEE L802.16-07/061 <http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/
L80216-07_061.pdf> is a serious analysis of the issue. It raises some
important procedural and practical concerns. It argues that this
case, which is a matter of standardization, is quite unlike the case
of point (1) above. It makes clear that the 802.16 WG does expect to
develop a proposal toward IMT-Advanced, based on the P802.16m
Amendment, and it argues that the PAR assigns the responsibility for
this internationalization to the WG. It suggests that forcing an 802-
wide collaboration on technology standards for IMT-Advanced would be
cumbersome, untimely, and ultimately unsuccessful.
In conclusion: If the topic is whether WGs should, in the future,
attempt to coordinate a joint contribution of a specific technical
standard or standards as an element of IMT-Advanced recommendations,
then it is clear that the 802.16 WG has taken a position against it
and provided its reasons. A standalone proposal developed within a WG
is routine under the procedures and, to my knowledge, is not contrary
to any "express direction of the EC." I'd be happy to discuss this
with the EC members.
On Nov 5, 2007, at 05:36 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
> I don't understand the meaning of "his intention of making a
> Do you mean that he is making a submittal on behalf of his Working
> or do you mean that he is planning a submittal as an individual or
> a non-802 entity (e.g. his employer or another body). WP8F in your
> means the ITU WP8F I assume. That makes it a communication to an
> "intergovernmental body" which comes under 14.2 of our rules rather
> Coordination with Other Standards Bodies under 14.1, right?
> If he intends to make a submittal from his Working Group, then it is
> covered by our rules. Under 14.2.2 Working Group or TAG
> the submittal would need 75% approval of the Working Group or TAG and
> sent to the EC for 5 day review during which a motion could be made to
> block release of the submittal and submittal would be withheld
> while we
> voted on the motion.
> If he is making the submittal as an individual or due to his role
> in an
> non-802 organization, I believe that is allowed. In that case, the
> submittal should make clear that it is not from the WG or IEEE 802. We
> didn't give up the ability to participate in other standards when we
> took our leadership roles in IEEE 802. I participate in and submit
> to T11 and at times in IETF without passing those submittals by LMSC.
> P.S., in reviewing the rules I noticed that Clause 14 of our P&P
> references 5.1.4 of the SB OM but 5.1.3 is the correct reference for
> Statements to external bodies. 5.1.4 is on Standards publicity.
> When we
> redo the P&P to split out bylaws, we should correct and probably
> put clause title in external references so that the reader has some
> if the referenced document changes clause numbers. I also noticed that
> 5.1.3 of the SB OM says all external statements should include in the
> opening paragraph or as a footnote to that paragraph:
> "This document solely represents the views of name of group and
> does not
> necessarily represent a position of either the IEEE or the IEEE
> Standards Association."
> I don't recall seeing that statement in all our external
> -------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
> From: "IEEE LISTSERV Server (15.0)" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> To: greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET
> Subject: Rejected posting to STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:51:43 +0000
> Paul has requested that I bring a concern that I have to the attention
> of the EC and that this subject be added as an agenda item for
> discussion by the EC in Atlanta. This message is in the way of a heads
> up to the members of the EC so that we can exchange views on the Ec
> My concern is that the chair of 802.16 has announced his intention of
> making a separate submittal to WP8F other than the joint submittal
> administered by 802.18 at the direction of the EC. I think that a
> separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and contrary to the
> express direction of the EC. I request that the EC clarify their
> direction so that all working groups will be playing on a level
> Arnie Greenspan
> 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.