Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802SEC] Motion on forwarding 802.20 draft 4.1 to RevCom


Please register my vote as approve.



Extended Commentary on Motion: UC-EC approves forwarding 802.20 draft
4.1 to RevCom


Being new to the EC and having this as the first major ballot I needed
to do some additional exploration before voting. My observations and
comments follow below.


Background Observations

There is a long running history of competition between 802.16 and
802.20. Rather than working on collective success they are continually
involved in discussions bent on the other's destruction. Given this long
established behavior, sponsor ballot comments submitted by WG16  may be
overly harsh,  while responses supplied by WG20 tend to be overly
dismissive. This behavior is by no means unique and I have clear
examples of equivalent behavior inside WG11.


This behavior is actually consistent with the running dialog, beginning
in 2002, with regard to requests for each others PAR to be withdrawn or


In a more ideal world, WGs would exchange constructive suggestions on
how the other's PAR or draft might be improved to ensure its success in
maneuvering through the IEEE process or in becoming accepted by the
market. I'm afraid that in the real world we see much more competitive
or obstructive behavior where the primary goal is at least significant
impediments if not outright elimination of the other. It is interesting
to note how far away from offers to help the other improve their work
products we have drifted.


I do not wish to indict the chairs of WG16 or WG20 who may well be the
most diplomatic and reasonable members of their groups because they must
necessarily represent the aspirations and sentiments of their WG


Ballot Question

If I were to interpret the intent of this ballot is to act as a
precursor to the RevCom committee and ask the question "Do I feel
comfortable proceeding to publication" most certainly the answer is no.
The approval level is low, the inclusion of an external standard is very
unusual and there are far too many individual comments and comment
resolutions that bear the emblems of the ongoing feud.


However, I believe that the more directed question was do I see anything
that represents a clear procedural mistake that warrants WG20 not
meeting the requirements set forth for conditional approval in moving
forward to RevCom.   I believe the membership of WG20 largely support
the current contents of the draft. For example, the topic of two
connection options, FDD and TDD, in one document has been the plan of
record for almost 6 years and I do not believe this dual mode bothers
the WG20 membership at all. 


So returning to the intent of this ballot is to act as a precursor to
the RevCom committee and ask the question "Has any IEEE SA guideline
been violated that should prevent asking RevCom to proceed to
publication"   the answer is no. 





Personal Questions I tried to resolve:

Is it valid to create an IEEE standard that references another
externally produced document such as ATIS-0700004.2005?  Yes



Is it acceptable to use the 2005 dated document when ATIS has produced
additional revisions? Yes.


I would prefer to see the WG20 draft reference the newer text but I
cannot state that is required. I presume WG20 will determine how to
maintain or update synchronization.


Is the approval level adequate? Yes.

Although exceptionally close to 75% it does meet IEEE requirements.


Are two PHYs acceptable? Yes.

There was clearly a plan to pursue this path dating back to 2003.


Have the RevCom submissions guidelines been met? Yes.

I can find no guideline that has been violated.


Is the PAR in line with the draft? Yes.


There were letter ballot comments suggesting that the title of the
project  "Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Standard Air Interface
for Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems Supporting Vehicular
Mobility - Physical and Media Access Control Layer Specification"   

and the PAR scope 

 "Specification of physical and medium access control layers of an air
interface for interoperable mobile broadband wireless access systems,
operating in licensed bands below 3.5 GHz, optimized for IP-data
transport, with peak data rates per user in excess of 1 Mbps. It
supports various vehicular mobility classes up to 250 Km/h in a MAN
environment and targets spectral efficiencies, sustained user data rates
and numbers of active users that are all significantly higher than
achieved by existing mobile systems. (See also Item 18)"  

did not align with the actual content of the draft.


Although more difficult to sort out than I had expected, I see no




I found that I needed to do a fair amount of research so I used the
following sources  in addition to the package distributed by James Gilb
and Mark


WG20 References


802.20 PAR PD-02      Dec 11, 2002

802.20 5C PD-03         Nov 13, 2002

802.20 SRD first draft  June 04, 2003

802.20 SRD v14 PD-06r1 July 16, 2004

802.20 meeting minutes Session #1 March 10-13, 2003

802.20 Draft  4.1m

802.20 Technology Selection Process PD-10

802.20 Evaluation Criteria PD-09




Conditional approval to go to revcom  March 20, 2008

Results of Sponsor ballot #1


IEEE-SA SB-Operations Manual 

5.4        Standards Ballot by the Sponsor 

5.4.3     Conduct of Ballot

                 Resolution of comments, objections and
negative votes

4.2.3 Standards Board Review Committee  Review of draft standards



IEEE-SA Standards Board Working Group Guide for Submittal of Proposed
Standards (21- September 2004)


2007 IEEE Standards Style Manual - Section 4 Document Structure

Submittal Package Review Tips for RevCom Members



Could not obtain these in time for the EC ballot:



ATIS-0700004.2008 addendum






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:51 PM
To: 802 SEC
Subject: [802SEC] UC-EC ballot, due tomorrow, May 21, 2008 AOE




The UC-EC ballot is due amay 21, 2008, AOE.  There have only been two 

responses to date.  Please remember to vote.


Motion: UC-EC approves forwarding 802.20 draft 4.1 to RevComm


Mover: James Gilb

Second: Bob Heile


Start of ballot May 7, 2008

End of ballot May 21, 2008 AOE (anywhere on earth)


James Gilb



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.