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

Re: [802SEC] 40 MHz 11n



            That is fine.  I only copied the EC since Paul brought up
the issue and I wanted the EC to be aware of it.





From: Bruce Kraemer [] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:01 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve;
Subject: RE: 40 MHz 11n



I don't believe the EC is the proper place for a debate but sponsor
ballot is. I can understand that members of the EC contain interested
parties but I don't want that group to turn into a comment resolution





From: Shellhammer, Steve [] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:06 PM
Cc:;; Bruce Kraemer;;;;;;;;;;;; Shellhammer, Steve;;;
Subject: 40 MHz 11n




            As you can see there are some strong concerns from other
working groups on this topic.  There have been emails on the 19/15/11
reflectors so you may not have seen all of them.


            Since the 11n PAR was earlier than the 802 coexistence rules
the TAG does not vote on this draft.  At one point 802.11 produced a CA
document based on your direction, but once it was ruled by the EC that
the WG did was not required to produce a CA document it was dropped.


            So it sounds like there are people who are going to vote
against this motion based on this issue.  It sounds like it will come up
at the EC when the draft is ready to go to Sponsor ballot.  I am not
sure when that will be.


            Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this issue?


Since these coexistence issues cut across WGs it is important that the
EC members are aware of it, so I copied the EC.





This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.