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

Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] Statement from 802.16 WG to 802.18 TAG on IMT-Advanced requirements issue



Arnie,

I also support Steve's proposal.

802.16's proposed schedule indicates its interest in having a  
schedule. It proposed its draft based on its understanding of the  
discussions in 802.18 and its review of the deadlines and time  
scales. I hope it was a useful contribution to the activity.

Regards,

Roger


On Mar 19, 2007, at 06:26 PM, amgrrg@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Roger:
>
> I am impressed by the fact that you don't seem to sleep and are  
> ever vigilant at computer-side to immediately respond to E-mails.  
> That asside I have an uneasy feeling that a continual testing of  
> the waters is taking place to see what can happen outside the  
> bounds of inclusiveness that I beleve is desired and expected. I  
> certainly endorse the idea of a schedule showing when the votes are  
> to take place and ALL other relevant details.
>
> Arnie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sshellha@qualcomm.com
> To: mjlynch@NORTEL.COM
> Cc: r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Sent: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 8:13 PM
> Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] Statement from 802.16 WG to 802.18  
> TAG on IMT-Advanced requirements issue
>
> Mike,     May I suggest that you put together a schedule showing  
> when the votes are to take place and all other relevant  
> details?     That way we will all have a common schedule to work  
> from. Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: ***** IEEE 802  
> Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On  
> Behalf Of Roger B. Marks Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:39 PM To:  
> STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.orgSubject: Re: [802SEC] Statement from  
> 802.16 WG to 802.18 TAG on IMT-Advanced requirements issue Hello,  
> Arnie. I have no knowledge of the "letter" of the agreement,  
> because I   haven't seen anything in writing yet. However, do I  
> think that   802.16's proposal is in accordance with the discussion  
> in 802.18 last   week, as I understood it. Regarding the question  
> of whether a specific time should be allocated   for 802.18  
> approval, I don't recall this being discussed explicitly.   Perhaps  
> I have forgotten. I do recall, however, the discussion that   the  
> EC ballot should be long enough to allow a simultaneous WG Letter    
> Ballot during the EC ballot, should such a ballot be appropriate  
> for   a WG. Note that the 802.16 proposal provides for an 18 day EC  
> ballot.   802.16 thought this would be enough time for WG's to run  
> a ballot   (which, according to the P&P, needs to be at least 15  
> days). I believe that 802.16 was under the impression that 802.18  
> could, if   it chose to, run its own 15-day ballot during the same  
> interval. To   my knowledge, this is in accordance with the 802 P&P  
> and doesn't   require the creation of any new procedures. There is  
> a second way that 802.18 could "formally approve" the output    
> document in accordance with 802.16's proposed schedule. Namely, a  
> TAG   Chair is empowered to conduct business at teleconferences. So  
> it   seems reasonable that, after a long series of weekly  
> consensus-  building telecons, 802.18 might be in a position to  
> "formally   approve" the output document in such a teleconference.  
> I'm not sure I understand your comment about "no less time".  
> However,   regarding your reference to "802.18 plus the extended  
> group including   WG chairs," it was my impression that the  
> relevant WG Chairs were to   be counted as members of 802.18. I'm  
> sure that Mike can clarify. Regards, Roger On Mar 19, 2007, at  
> 04:53 PM, amgrrg@aol.com wrote: > ,Gentemen: > > In reviewing the  
> statement posted at the site noted below one is   > struck  
> immediatly by the fact that no approval by 802.18 is   > included  
> in the process no less time for 802.18 plus the extended   > group  
> including WG chairs that have expressed an interst in the IMT-  >  
> Advanced requirements. Thus it seems to contradict both the  
> letter   > and spirit of what was agreed to in Orlando. > > Arnie  
> Greenspan > > > -----Original Message----- > From:  
> r.b.marks@ieee.org> To: mjlynch@NORTEL.COM> Cc: stds-802- 
> sec@IEEE.ORG> Sent: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 1:19 AM > Subject: [802SEC]  
> Statement from 802.16 WG to 802.18 TAG on IMT-  > Advanced  
> requirements issue > > Mike, > > The IEEE 802.16 has approved a  
> statement to the 802.18 TAG   > regarding the IMT-Advanced  
> requirements issue: >   http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/ 
> L80216-07_018r2.pdf> > I hope you find it to be a useful  
> contribution to the activity. > > Regards, > > Roger > ----------  
> 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.
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's  
> free from AOL at AOL.com.
>

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