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

Re: [802SEC] Comments received on the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal

Thanks for your answer. As you know I was not able to arrive before Wednesday morning and 802.21 WG Vice Chair conducted the meeting during first two days. When Charlie had comments ready, he discussed with Anthony but by that time Tuesday deadline has passed. Then it was suggested to submit them as an individual comments and that's what Charlie did. During last one year of this ECSG, I tried to allocate time for our members to join OmniRAN sessions. In fact a good number of .21 members always attended and participated in the discussions including Charlie. The topic of OmniRAN not addressing the comments came up during 802.21 WG closing plenary yesterday evening. Members thought that even if it was late, those comments will be addressed until they found that your response package didn't include them. I understand that time was an issue and they didn't follow the rule but the current circumstances left me with a difficult position within the group.


-----Original Message-----
From: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich) [] 
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 10:25 AM
To: Das, Subir; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; ''
Cc: 'ext Charles E. Perkins'; 'h chan'
Subject: RE: Comments received on the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal

Hello Subir,

Thanks for bringing this up. There are two aspects in this case:
- Formal reasons not to set an official precedence that submitters of PAR comments have not to adhere to the IEEE 802 rules
- Considerations about the uniqueness and substance of the comments

For formal reasons to protect the integrity of IEEE 802 policy and procedures I decided not to officially take the comments into account.
Unfortunately we were very tight in time in the Wednesday ECSG meetings which did not to allow to bring up the submission for information in left-over meeting time - the usual procedure on how to handle incoming material, which did not make it on the official agenda.

Nevertheless I personally reviewed the comments of Charlie Perkins to determine whether there are aspects brought up, which were not covered by the discussion of the other comments. When comparing the comments of Charlie in the scope of the orderly submitted comments to the PAR (see Charlie's comments attached), the comments are addressing issues also brought up by other commenters, which led to modifications and clarifications of the PAR text. Charlie was present in the meeting and contributed to the discussions of the text changes in the PAR. Regards the proposal to make the intended specification more normative; we had multiple comments to resolve on the nature of the intended specification - whether it should become a 'Standard', a 'Recommended Practice' or a 'Guide', with the conclusion to balance the received comments by sticking to 'Recommended Practice'.

As mentioned above: unfortunately there was no time left at the end of the Wednesday meetings to open Charlie's document and do the cross-check of Charlie's comments in the ECSG.

Hello Subir, I hope I was able to show that all comments brought up on the draft PAR proposal were seriously considered, even when brought up to attention on completely informal ways.

Kind regards

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Das, Subir []
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 06:29
To: Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG;
Cc: 'ext Charles E. Perkins'; h chan
Subject: RE: Comments received on the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal

Hello Max,
I am wondering why ECSG has decided not to address Charlie's comments. I understand that Charlie submitted the comments after Tuesday 5 pm deadline but if the purpose of a PAR/5C is to be reviewed by other groups and members, then these comments should have been addressed. You asked James and my understanding is that his comment was "The rules don't require OmniRAN to address them. However, they will probably come up in the Friday closing if you don't, so the best policy would be to address them." OTH, ECSG completely ignored it. 


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:07 PM
Cc: 'ext Charles E. Perkins'
Subject: [802SEC] Comments received on the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal

To make sure that we are not missing any comments to the OmniRAN draft PAR proposal I would like to confirm the receipt of the comments.
In my email, I received comments from the following groups/individuals:

- Pat Thaler (individual on Oct 17th)
- James Gilb
- IEEE 802.1
- IEEE 802.11
- IEEE 802.19

The comments are collected in
ected-comments-on-draft-par-proposal.xlsx for processing by the OmniRAN EC SG.

Please send me a notice, if comments were submitted and the submitter is not mentioned above.

Furthermore I received comments by private email from Charles Perkins at Tue, 11:15 PM, more than 6 hours after the submission deadline. The comments received after submission deadline will not be addressed by the EC SG.

James, please advise if the EC SG should address the late PAR comments submission.


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.