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

Re: [802SEC] Confusion regarding document 18-15/0016


Any position that IEEE 802 takes needs to approved by the EC, not developed solely by the Sponsor Chair.

If we approve "the report of the results of the Tiger Team" it means that EC agrees with its conclusions, unless it explicitly states in the document that the EC does not. If that is the case, I don't see why the EC would vote on it.

The question is: What is the position that the EC is taking. From what I have heard it it this:

1) IEEE 802 convened a Tiger Team to work with DSRC
2) Despite fruitful conversation in a collaborative atmosphere, the group failed to come to consensus (75% approval) of a final report. 3) The 802 EC does not take any position regarding a particular coexistence method, but would like to make the FCC aware of the report, which can be found at

Thanks for you time, <insert polite phrases here>

And a letter containing that information is all that we should vote on or send to the FCC. The IEEE 802 community has developed positions that have the support of 75% of a WG, approval by IEEE 802.18 and the EC that we have communicated to the FCC. I don't think we should dilute the force of our opinion by forwarding a document for which we don't have consensus.

IMHO (and I may be alone in this opinion).

But, it is also possible that I am missing something here.

James Gilb

On 03/16/2015 02:07 PM, Michael Lynch wrote:

Agreed that we should make clear that IEEE 802 is eager to support
coexistence methods with other standards and primary users in all
bands. Since we may want to avoid further editing of the report that
can be left to the IEEE 802 Sponsor's cover letter/letter of
transmittal to the FCC. That document is Paul's to attach when he
forwards the report to the FCC. I am somewhat reluctant to "put"
words into Paul's mouth. The cover letter/letter of conveyance can
and should reflect his views of the DSRC report. If he agrees we can
leave it to him to develop the cover letter and not put it up for EC
approval. It is simply the means of conveying to the FCC what the
DSRC report represents. It should give the IEEE 802 Sponsor ample
opportunity to show that IEEE 802 is not endorsing the report; it
simply represents the proceedings of the Tiger Team.

There is, of course, the report of the results of the Tiger Team. I
totally agree that we need to make plain that IEEE 802 does not
endorse any particular conclusions in the report. What we are
providing is simply a report of what the Tiger Team's work was. That
clarification can be provided in the cover letter/letter of
transmittal that Paul will add to the report.

If the latter is acceptable then we will ballot a single document,
the Tiger Team Report. Or are there other views on this? Simply
balloting the Tiger Team Report, while allowing Paul the latitude to
develop the cover letter, may be the simplest way forward.

Best regards,


-----Original Message----- From: James Gilb []
On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb Sent: 16 March, 2015 15:46 To: Michael
Lynch; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Confusion
regarding document 18-15/0016


If you want to forward both to the FCC, then I think it should be
clear in both documents the status with respect to IEEE 802, i.e.,
that is a report of the Tiger Team's work and that IEEE 802 does not
endorse any particular conclusions in the report.

IMHO: We should add that IEEE 802 is eager to support coexistence
methods with other standards and primary users in all bands, or some
similar language.

James Gilb

On 03/16/2015 11:38 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:

I think that I hear you saying that a redrafted cover letter should
also be balloted. Presumably that could be done separately from the
report itself, as a second document to be balloted. Or do you see
it as  included as a part of the report.



Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From:
James P. K. Gilb<> Sent: ‎3/‎16/‎2015 13:26

Subject: Re: [802SEC] Confusion regarding document 18-15/0016


Thanks for the explanation.

One thing that I thought was confusing and perhaps not well stated
in the the document was that this is a report and does not
represent the consensus of IEEE 802 or any of its Working Groups.
The former requires 2/3 and the latter 75% approval.

I think a summary of the results of the task is appropriate to
issue from the EC, but it should be clear in the cover letter and
document that this is a report of activity but not a conclusion or

As you state, showing that the IEEE 802 community wants to work
with other stakeholders to share frequency bands is a very good
thing. That should be stated in the cover letter as well.

It is not clear to me at this time that the cover letter and
document stated these things clearly.  It could be that I simply
missed where they were in the documents.

James Gilb

On 03/13/2015 08:51 AM, Rich Kennedy wrote:


What the 802.18 Chair should have presented is an explanation of
the project, and what this document represents. This is now going
to become a reflector review and approval, so let me take this
early step of explaining what this document is all about.

1.     In a 2013 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the FCC
proposed unlicensed sharing of the U-NII-4 band (5850-5925 MHz).
This band currently has an allocation for Dedicated Short Range
Devices (DSRC) for the Intelligent Transport Systems, which
currently uses a version of IEEE 802.11p as its wireless

2.     This sharing would be regulated under the rules of FCC
Part 15, which means we cannot interfere with the ITS because it
has a primary allocation. In order for us to engage the DSRC
community to find a sharing mechanism they would approve, I set
up a Tiger Team comprised of members of the  WLAN community and
the DSRC community.

3.     There were two major reasons for this approach

a.     There was a chance we could define a mechanism that they
would be able to accept as not harmful to their safety-of-life
network, and we would share with DSRC in a similar fashion to our
sharing in other bands with radars, FSS installations, etc.

b.     We had to show the FCC that we were willing to work with
the DSRC, as the FCC would be responsible for letting us share,
so they were very concerned that this be a solution that both
sides agreed to. This tends to foster good relations with the
regulator. With many more bands queued up for sharing, I felt
that building trust with the FCC was critical for this, and for
future sharing opportunities. The FCC Chairman even mentioned our
Tiger Team on a couple of occasions, asking that a Senate bill to
rush opening of the upper 5 GHz band wait for results from our

4.     After 20 months of trying to reach an agreement, which
almost happened last November, it became clear that the two sides
could not agree on a solution. At that point I asked the Tiger
Team chair to gather some opinions from both sides, which he did
with a series of straw polls.

5.     I did not ask the Regulatory SC to vote to approve the
report, which draws no conclusions, make no suggestion and states
only that a compromise could not be reached. In a small group,
any concerned party can find enough votes to avoid approving the
report. Especially one as small as 802.18. I therefore asked the
full 802.11 WG to vote, so it truly represented the undistorted
view of the full WG. Here it passed by 53-48; in the SC a straw
poll was noticeably different.

6.     The 802.11 WG motion read: Believing that the report in
document 11-15/0347r0 represents the work of the DSRC Coexistence
Tiger Team, forward it to 802.18 for approval to send to the EC
for its approval and submittal to the FCC. ".represents the work
of the Tiger Team", which it factually did.

7.     By sending the report to the FCC, where we clearly state
that no consensus was reached, but that we tried hard to reach
one, we still could show the FCC our good faith effort. In the
RR-TAG vote, we were forced to remove section 11, because straw
poll results were slightly skewed towards the DSRC preferred
mechanism, and some members wanted to take it out because they
felt that slight edge could be misinterpreted. However, it was
clearly stated in the report that 57% of the straw poll
respondents were from the DSRC side.

8.     The motion to approve sending the report was simply an
effort to send the full results of the Tiger Team work to the
FCC. There was no IEEE endorsement and no conclusions.

9.     When we removed section 11 and added the note to the
abstract that there was no (Tiger Team) consensus among the
participants, we created a new document with this clean version:
18-15/0016r0. This should have been motioned at the EC meeting;
not the r1 version. I was told that an EC member was going to ask
us to remove two references that were orphaned when section 11
was removed, so rather than take EC time to edit the document, I
created a version that deleted those references. While doing that
I made an editorial change, removing the line numbering along the
left side of the text. Otherwise it is identical to r0.

Unfortunately, the 802.18 Chair did not explain any of this, and
I apologize for the confusion it caused.

I hope you use this email as a starting point for your review of
the Tiger Team report, and vote to approve sending it to the

Thank you.

Rich Kennedy

Manager, New Technology Development

<> MediaTek Inc.


(832) 298-1114

Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum & Regulatory TG Chair

Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces TTG Chair

Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces MTG Vice-chair

IEEE802.11 TGaf (WLAN in White Spaces) Chair

IEEE802.11/15 Regulatory SC Chair

IEEE 802.11/18 Liaison

---------- 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.