From: "Avi Freedman" To: "Ian Gifford" Subject: Re: SB1 P802.15.1/D0.9.2 - Unresolved Technical Comment Report Date: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:18 AM Ian, The correspondence you attached provided me with a much better understanding of what is going on. I am changing my vote than, as per your request to "Yes, with comments". Not that I agree with every word they said, but at least I understand the difficulty. In one of the resonses (David Cypher's) it was said: "There is nothing preventing an implementor from using the current functions and procedures to provide a mechanism as described" I would really appreciate it if you could point out which function or procedure can be used to provide a mechanism to switch between full and partial band. It wouldn't change my "change of votes", just to satisfy my curiosity. Do I need to make a formal change of vote through the website? Avi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Gifford" To: "Avi Freedman" Cc: "Fujio Watanabe" ; "Tom Siep" ; "Mike D. McInnis" ; "David E. Cypher" ; "'Michael Camp'" ; "Chatschik Bisdikian" Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 2:03 PM Subject: Re: SB1 P802.15.1/D0.9.2 - Unresolved Technical Comment Report > Hi Avi, > > Thank you for the reply. > > AF>but at least I want to see some willingness to address the problem. > > The BRC has a willingness (see attached BRC files) to address problems but > some comments, such as yours, have exogenous factors and as such we plead no > contest. The bottom line is we understand but issues of implementation are > out of our project charter i.e., scope and purpose. > > AF>If, for the benefit of advancing the standard, it is necessary that I > change it to "Yes with comments" I will do it. > > The Ballot Review Committee has reviewed your reply but our resolution to > SB1 Comment #7 remains the same: > > REJECT. > The disputed statement: "...products implementing the reduced frequency band > will not work with the products that implement the full band..." refers to > product implementations rather to a feature of the standard. These > implementations are subject to government regulations beyond the control of > the standard (if I recall well, the 802.11a (5 GHz) is illegal in Europe!) > > Based on the results of the recirculation and for the benefit of advancing > the standard, the BRC believes it is necessary that you change your vote to > "Yes with comments". Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and if you > can comply to our request. > > -Ian > -- > Ian Gifford > giffordi@ieee.org > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Avi Freedman" > To: "Ian Gifford" > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 8:18 PM > Subject: Re: SB1 P802.15.1/D0.9.2 - Unresolved Technical Comment > Report > > > > Dear Ian, > > > > There could be a chance to change my vote to "Yes with comments" but, I > am > > afraid the suggested resolution to my comment (#7) is avoiding the problem > > rather than showing a way to solve it. > > I don't agree that the disputed statement refers to product implementation > > rather than a feature of the standard. There should be some feature in > the > > standard enabling the implementation to work in both full and reduced band > > (should the implementor wishes to implement it) and there isn't. > > Governement regulations are indeed beyond the control of the standard, but > > are not beyond the control of the standard committees. IEEE 802/REG > > together with the Bluetooth SIG could inititate activites in various > > countries to enable full band operation. > > Thirdly, I don't care if 802.11a is illegal in Europe. At least 802.11 is > > active in entering 802.11a into the "HiperLAN" family, and besides the > > 802.11a PHY is identical to that of HIPERLAN2 and hence it is legal in > > Europe to turn it on. Besides there is a difference between 802.15 and > > 802.11. We are talking about devices that accompany people wherever they > > go, and as such, they should work anywhere. I can think of changing my > > PCMCIA card in my laptop, when I go to France, but it is impossible for me > > to think of changing my hand held computer. > > > > As I understand the standard is approved even if I leave my "No" vote. > If, > > for the benefit of advancing the standard, it is necessary that I change > it > > to "Yes with comments" I will do it, but at least I want to see some > > willingness to address the problem. > > > > Avi Freedman > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ian Gifford" > > To: "Bob O'Hara" ; > ; > > "Avraham Freedman" > > Cc: "Fujio Watanabe" ; "Tom Siep" > > ; "Mike D. McInnis" ; > > "David E. Cypher" ; "'Michael Camp'" > > ; "Chatschik Bisdikian" > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:14 AM > > Subject: Fw: SB1 P802.15.1/D0.9.2 - Unresolved Technical Comment > > Report > > > > > > > Hmmm....given the nearness of reaching approval of the TG1 draft, is > there > > > anyone who believes that they would like to change their vote from "NO" > to > > > "Yes, with comments"? > > > More info: > > > http://ieee802.org/15/pub/SB1/SB1.html > > > http://ieee802.org/15/pub/SB1/SB1-unresolved-comments.txt > > > > > > If there are questions I can be reached on +1 978 815 8182. > > > -- > > > Ian Gifford > > > giffordi@ieee.org > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Ian Gifford" > > > To: "Private WG Mailing List 802.15" > > > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 4:49 PM > > > Subject: SB1 P802.15.1/D0.9.2 - Unresolved Technical Comment > Report > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear WPAN'ers, > > > > > > > > As you are aware the Sponsor Ballot #1 (SB1) passed 26/3/1 or 89% on > > > > 25Aug01. The resultant resolution took longer than anticipated, > > however, > > > we > > > > are happy to inform the WG that the SB1 Comment Resolution Workbook > > > > (-01/420r9) and Unresolved Technical Comment Report were just posted > to > > > the > > > > Web Site. The next step will be to finalize the P802.15.1 edits, > based > > on > > > > the first Sponsor Ballot and the Project Editor, and post the required > > > files > > > > for Sponsor Ballot #2, a 10-day recirculation. We are planning to > have > > > the > > > > Draft ready for submission to the Balloting Center for recirculation > on > > or > > > > before Friday, 28Sep01 midnight. > > > > > > > > More info: > > > > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/private/802-15list/msg00397.html > > > > http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg01679.html > > > > http://ieee802.org/15/pub/SB1/SB1.html > > > > > > > > -Ian > > > > -- > > > > Ian Gifford > > > > giffordi@ieee.org > > > > > > > > -------- > > > > This message came from the IEEE P802.15 Mailing List > > > > Info at http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/ > > > > > > >