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

Re: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.21/D13 to RevCom

G'day Vivek

I would suggest that the cleanest and quickest way to resolve this issue
is to run another SB recirculation before the September meeting. There
is time if we start soon

Such a recirculation is the best way to formally poll the views of the
Sponsor Pool (who currently own the draft) rather than the 802.21 WG
(who no longer own the draft).

It also resolves a number of procedural issues that I believe will get
in the way of approval by RevCom in December.


-----Original Message-----
From: stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Gupta, Vivek G
Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2008 1:37 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: Paul Nikolich; STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.21/D13 to RevCom

Dear Andrew,

The 802.11v draft (currently in WG LB <75% Approval rate) is not
referenced in 802.21 because it is not required for 802.21
implementation. As for 802.11u, we worked closely with that group and
802.11u is required for 802.21 implementation.

Your colleague (on whose behalf you seem to be filing comments) pointed
to us: "802.21 may as well reference a newspaper clipping rather than
reference unapproved IEEE drafts". This influenced the 802.21 WG
reasoning in SB comment resolution.

I have checked with the WG Editor and few other people in WG. There is
strong consensus *NOT* to reference 802.11v from our draft in the way
you have described. However we will discuss this further during our Sept
WG meeting. You are welcome to come to 802.21 and express your views. It
seems highly unlikely at this point that 802.21 WG will agree to this

Kind Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Myles (amyles) []
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:53 PM
Cc: Gupta, Vivek G; Paul Nikolich
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.21/D13 to RevCom

G'day all

I have reviewed the responses to my comments in the recent 802.21
recirculation SB. I believe that the conditions of the Conditional
Approval have NOT been satisfied. I object to sending the draft to
RevCom. I request that the draft be recirculated and the draft be
removed from the RevCom agenda.

In particular I refer to comment #4.

* In the previous ballot, I requested a change

* That request was responded to in a way that did not address the issue
raised in the comment

* In the most recent ballot, I requested the same change

* The WG responded in a completely different way compared to the
previous ballot

* Sending the draft to RevCom at this time denies me the right to reply
to their response

In the next Sponsor Ballot I will comment

* The basis of rejecting my comment appears to be that 802.11v is not
yet a standard

* On this basis anything in the draft related to 802.11u (there is a lot
of material) must also be removed because 802.11u is not yet a standard

* I am not advocating the 802.11u material be removed

* I am requesting that my requested change is considered on its merits
and not rejected based on fallacious and inconsistent arguments

Andrew Myles

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, 18 August 2008 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Clause 19 Report regarding P802.21/D13 to RevCom

Hi Vivek,

In review of the Tony Jeffree 1/2 [
] I note that Tony is a Disapprove voter and has marked this comment as
Must Be Satisfied. I further note that the response doesn't state that
the comment is out of scope due to being related to unchanged text - nor
does it state that the comment is a restatement of a previous comment -
instead the response simply provides a rebuttal. Based on this you
appear to me to be treating this comment as a new valid Disapprove
comments - is this correct ?

I did try to find the comments and response from the previous
recirculations on the IEEE 802.21 web site but was unable to find them
so I'm unable to see what comment #1 on recirculation #4 stated.

Best regards,

***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> wrote on 15/08/2008 19:45:43:

> Dear EC Colleagues:

> I am reporting on the status of P802.21/D13.0, as per the Clause 19

> Conditional Approval granted on 18 July, 2008.

> The Sponsor Ballot Recirculation-6, including the review of

> P802.21/D13.0 ran from 30 July, 2008 - 14 August, 2008.

> The final vote tally is: 126/5/11

> The Approval Ratio is 96.18% and the Return Ratio is 86%.

> The conditions have been met.

> ?       No New Disapprove votes were received during this

> ?       Total of 12 comments were submitted. 7 of these are from
> Disapprove voters.

> ?       No Technical changes are required as a result of these

> ?       No new valid Disapprove comments on new issues

> The complete report is available at:


> Accordingly, I shall be forwarding P802.21 to RevCom.

> Best Regards,

> Vivek

> Vivek Gupta

> Chair, IEEE 802.21

> ----------
> 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.

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