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

RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Revision 2 of the Coexistence CG recommendation to the WG



 Reza,
 
I accept your logic and agree with your approach.
 
Thanks much,
 
Best regards,
 
Joanne 
-----Original Message-----
From: Reza Arefi [mailto:reza.arefi@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 6:56 PM
To: 'Joanne Wilson'; '802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)'
Cc: marcg@arraycomm.com; mike@arraycomm.com
Subject: RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Revision 2 of the Coexistence CG recommendation to the WG

 Joanne,
While it is true that the sentence you suggest goes without saying, it is also true that it is a requirement. And it is a requirement that can actually be enforced by the regulatory authorities. So, it makes sense that 802.20 requirements document acknowledge it due to its importance.  For instance, the requirements document says that 802.20 systems are required to operate below 3.5 GHz. Given the PAR, this is also a given but it needs to be mentioned due to its importance. 
 
I will replace the last sentence of section 5.1 with what you suggested below unless I hear objections from others by midnight.
 
Regards,
Reza

 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Joanne Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:14 AM
To: reza.arefi@ieee.org; 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)
Cc: marcg@arraycomm.com; mike@arraycomm.com
Subject: RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Revision 2 of the Coexistence CG recommendation to the WG


 Reza,
 
I am concerned about the following text at the end of section 5.1:
It is, therefore, recommended that the future CTG work with the requirements CG to make sure this
requirement be clearly reflected in the requirements document.
My first concern is that the CTG, which would be formed after its PAR is approved, couldn't come into being
until March 2004 at the earliest.  I truly hope that the Requirements CG would have completed its work
before then, at least for the first release of the 802.20 standard.   My second concern is that the requirements document is being cast as if it imposes requirements on operators and vendors.  It doesn't.  The requirements document establishes requirements for the air interface.  With respect to the regulatory requirements, they are market-dependent and band-dependent.  So, it's not clear to me what meaningful requirement could be established without knowledge of the specific bands and their associated regulatory requirements.  We could replace the above text with the following:
It is, therefore, recommended that the Requirements CG take into consideration the need for
802.20 systems to meet specific regulatory requirements in the market in which they are
deployed.
Personally, I expect folks to say, "No kidding.  Doesn't this go without saying."  Hence, my preference would be to delete the sentence altogether.
 
Best regards,
 
Joanne

 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Reza Arefi
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:55 PM
To: 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)
Subject: stds-80220-coexistence: Revision 2 of the Coexistence CG recommendation to the WG

Folks,
I am attaching revision 2 of our document to this email. Blue text is what we have agreed to. There is also some new text that you would need to have "track changes" activated to see it. We don't have any more conference calls so please submit your comments (and responses to others' comments) to the reflector no later than midnight (EST) on Friday 11/7/03. I am planning to submit the document on Saturday.
 
A few points:
1. I included Al's text related to equipment characteristics in section 4.1. I believe that this section and section 5.5, however, are covering the same thing; input required for the coexistence work. I propose that we combine these two sections under 5.5. Please let me know if you have any objection.
2. I have added MSWord comments for new text stating who the text is from. You need to activate "View -> Comments" to be able to see them.
3. For the sake of clarity and structure of the document I put the two differing viewpoints on 5.2 into an appendix.
 
Thanks for your participation.
Regards,
Reza