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

Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to ITU WP8F response



Dear Arnie,

As you have dragged my name into this debate. Let's get the facts at
least right.

I have not attended any meeting in Montreal so you are possibly refering
to the July 2007 plenary when the 802.18 organized the IMT-Advanced
meeting. I'm attaching the link for notes of that meeting.

http://ieee802.org/18/Meeting_documents/2007_July/18-07-0061_IMT_Advance
d_meeting_July17_07.dot

This should at least help give more clarity on what was said at that
meeting.

Thanks & best regards,
jose

_____________________________________________
Jose Puthenkulam
Director, WiMAX Standards
Vice Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group
Wireless Standards and Technology,
Mobility Group
Intel Corporation
Desk: (503) 2646121; Cell: (503) 8038609
Mailto:jose.p.puthenkulam@intel.com




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:57 PM
> To: Roger B. Marks; SEC
> Cc: dot16; greenspan Arnie
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Arnie's concern regarding submittals to 
> ITU WP8F response
> 
> All:
> 
> Let me start to respond by stating that 802.20 was invited 
> and agreed to participate in the development of a single 
> common input from ITU WP8F under the leadership and 
> coordination of Mike Lynch and 802.18. For our first input we 
> had coordination, telecoms, disscussion and ultimately 
> achieved consensus and a common 802 input.
> At the Montreal meeting (I believe) Mike lynch hosted an 
> evening meeting discussing the next input to be developed by 
> 802 for submittal to ITU. At that meeting the Vice Chair of 
> 802.16 stood up and said that achieving a common input by 
> working with the other working groups was too hard and that 
> 802.16 would develop their own input. This may or may not be 
> the position of 802.16 but it was said. I remember it 
> distinctly because Steve Shellhammer responded by stating 
> (inellegantly but I think accurately) that if achieving 
> consensus was hard that was just tough because that is what 
> we do in the IEEE and in 802.
> Now it appears by the responses received from Bob and Pat 
> that, what I believed was direction from the EC that one 
> input from 802 was to be developed and coordinated through 
> 802.18 was not exactly what was decided by the EC. According 
> to them, there may be an input from 802 via 802.18 but there 
> may be other inputs from individuals or other companys or a 
> variety of entities. This was not at all clear to me nor the 
> basis that we in 802.20 joined in the 802.18 effort.
> What I have asked is that the EC clarify their intent. If the 
> EC has asked for an 802.18 input and a variety of other 
> inputs from sundry sources let us make that clear and I am 
> certain that a Whitmans Sampler of inputs will sprout as 
> inputs to ITU WP8F. If the EC beleives that this would cause 
> confusion and reflect badly on the IEEE and 802 then we 
> should say that and enforce a single input. If Roger would 
> like to state that this has all been a terrible 
> missunderstanding on my part and that he or other .16 
> entities have no interntion, plan or interest in developing a 
> different input, that would be helpfull, even though Pat and 
> Bob seem to believe that as long as we put a different 
> wrapping and name on an input that was developed within 802 
> that is OK.
> 
> Arnie Greenspan
> 
> 
>  Original message from "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>: 
> -------------- 
> 
> 
> > Arnie,
> > 
> > I'm also confused about what you are saying here, even 
> though I am a 
> > principal party. Other EC members may really be in the dark.
> > 
> > In particular, you said that "the chair of 802.16 has announced his 
> > intention of making a separate submittal to WP8F other than 
> the joint 
> > submittal administered by 802.18 at the direction of the 
> EC". I think 
> > it is important to be specific here. Could you tell me, for 
> instance, 
> > what I announced, and when, and to whom? I can speculate as to your 
> > meaning (see point (2) below), but it would probably be 
> helpful to the 
> > EC if they were not forced to speculate.
> > 
> > When you say that "separate submittal by 802.16 is 
> inappropriate and 
> > contrary to the express direction of the EC," are you 
> referring to the 
> > P&P (Clause 14.2, as noted by Pat)? If not, when and where 
> else does 
> > the EC provide an "express direction" regarding submittals to ITU-R?
> > 
> > Over the years, the 802.16 WG has initiated many contributions that 
> > went from IEEE to ITU-R. Some of these went to WP 8F. Of course, 8F 
> > has been disbanded, but I won't get too hung up on that issue since 
> > its work will undoubtedly be assigned to another WP. Still, 
> I am not 
> > sure what topics you are addressing. What is the topic of the "the 
> > joint submittal administered by 802.18" you mentioned?
> > 
> > Let's consider two particular topics that formerly fell under 8F. 
> > Both are related to IMT-Advanced: 
> > 
> > (1) Contributions of comments regarding the IMT-Advanced technical 
> > requirements.
> > The IEEE 802.16 Working Group has participated actively with the
> > 802.18 TAG toward reaching consensus contributions. It did so in 
> > preparation for the previous regularly-scheduled meeting of 
> WP 8F (in 
> > May). In July, you volunteered to second a proposal that Mr.
> > Stevenson offered as an email motion > msg09626.html> "that 
> individual 
> > WGs be prohibited by the EC from presenting individual, 
> potentially differing, inputs to ITU-R"
> > regarding IMT-Advanced. The EC Chair ruled this motion out of order 
> > "since it is direct conflict with 802 P&P sections 14.1 and 
> 14.2 which 
> > grant WGs an TAGs the ability to communicate directly with 
> standards 
> > bodies and government bodies" > msg09570.html>. The Chair also said 
> > that "it does seem reasonable for the 802 WGs and TAGs to 
> provide an 
> > IEEE 802 communication to the ITU- R IMT-Advanced activity 
> if possible 
> > and I would encourage them to do so."
> > 
> > To summarize the followup to that discussion, the 802.16 WG 
> continued 
> > to follow the EC Chair's encouragement. It has not proposed 
> to develop 
> > its own standalone input on this topic. In fact, in September, it 
> > submitted two contributions to the IEEE 802.18 TAG on the 
> issue. One 
> > proposed that 802.18 develop input to ITU-R on IMT- Advanced 
> > evaluation criteria as well as IMT-Advanced technical requirements, 
> > and it proposed specific procedures and schedules to encourage 
> > efficient development of contributions by the November Plenary. The 
> > other offered detailed comments. These contributions were copied to 
> > the EC . To my knowledge, 802.18 received no other contributions on 
> > the IMT- Advanced topic for consideration in its September meeting. 
> > 802.18 decided to continue development before the November 
> Plenary. To 
> > my understanding, only the 802.16 and 802.11 WGs 
> contributed to that 
> > effort, which resulted in two drafts that were posted today.
> > 
> > Is this "the joint submittal administered by 802.18" that you 
> > mentioned? If so, then I don't see any sign of the "intent" you 
> > believe I announced. On the contrary, I conclude that 
> 802.16 has been 
> > active in supporting 802.18, on a voluntary basis, in the 
> development 
> > of submittals intended as IEEE contributions regarding IMT-Advanced 
> > technical comments and evaluation criteria. So perhaps you were not 
> > thinking of this topic.
> > 
> > (2) Contributions of technical proposed regarding the 
> content of IMT- 
> > Advanced recommendations.
> > The issue of whether IEEE 802.18 would try, in the future, to 
> > coordinate a joint contribution of a specific technical standard or 
> > standards as an element of IMT-Advanced recommendations was 
> discussed 
> > within 802.18 during the July Plenary. Various views were 
> stated, and 
> > no decision was reached .
> > The 802.16 WG followed up with a contribution (IEEE 
> L802.16-07/061) to 
> > the 802.18 Radio Regulatory TAG's September session, 
> copying the EC . 
> > It is possible that you were referring to this document 
> when you said 
> > that I announced my intention. But please note that this 
> contribution 
> > was not an announcement by the WG Chair; it identified itself as a 
> > statement "from the 802.16 Working Group." Its purpose was 
> "to share 
> > our views on the development/coordination of 802 radio interface 
> > technology
> > submission(s) to ITU-R for IMT-Advanced." 
> > 
> > This document IEEE L802.16-07/061 > L80216-07_061.pdf> is a serious 
> > analysis of the issue. It raises some important procedural and 
> > practical concerns. It argues that this case, which is a matter of 
> > standardization, is quite unlike the case of point (1) 
> above. It makes 
> > clear that the 802.16 WG does expect to develop a proposal toward 
> > IMT-Advanced, based on the P802.16m Amendment, and it 
> argues that the 
> > PAR assigns the responsibility for this internationalization to the 
> > WG. It suggests that forcing an 802- wide collaboration on 
> technology 
> > standards for IMT-Advanced would be cumbersome, untimely, 
> and ultimately unsuccessful.
> > 
> > 
> > In conclusion: If the topic is whether WGs should, in the future, 
> > attempt to coordinate a joint contribution of a specific technical 
> > standard or standards as an element of IMT-Advanced 
> recommendations, 
> > then it is clear that the 802.16 WG has taken a position against it 
> > and provided its reasons. A standalone proposal developed 
> within a WG 
> > is routine under the procedures and, to my knowledge, is 
> not contrary 
> > to any "express direction of the EC." I'd be happy to discuss this 
> > with the EC members.
> > 
> > Roger
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Nov 5, 2007, at 05:36 PM, Pat Thaler wrote: 
> > 
> > > Arnie,
> > > 
> > > I don't understand the meaning of "his intention of making a 
> > > submittal".
> > > Do you mean that he is making a submittal on behalf of 
> his Working 
> > > Group or do you mean that he is planning a submittal as an 
> > > individual or from a non-802 entity (e.g. his employer or another 
> > > body). WP8F in your email means the ITU WP8F I assume. 
> That makes it 
> > > a communication to an "intergovernmental body" which comes under 
> > > 14.2 of our rules rather than Coordination with Other Standards 
> > > Bodies under 14.1, right?
> > > 
> > > If he intends to make a submittal from his Working Group, 
> then it is 
> > > covered by our rules. Under 14.2.2 Working Group or TAG 
> > > Communications, the submittal would need 75% approval of 
> the Working 
> > > Group or TAG and sent to the EC for 5 day review during which a 
> > > motion could be made to block release of the submittal 
> and submittal 
> > > would be withheld while we voted on the motion.
> > > 
> > > If he is making the submittal as an individual or due to 
> his role in 
> > > an
> > > non-802 organization, I believe that is allowed. In that 
> case, the 
> > > submittal should make clear that it is not from the WG or 
> IEEE 802. 
> > > We didn't give up the ability to participate in other 
> standards when 
> > > we took our leadership roles in IEEE 802. I participate in and 
> > > submit input to T11 and at times in IETF without passing those 
> > > submittals by LMSC.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Pat
> > > 
> > > P.S., in reviewing the rules I noticed that Clause 14 of our P&P 
> > > references 5.1.4 of the SB OM but 5.1.3 is the correct 
> reference for 
> > > Statements to external bodies. 5.1.4 is on Standards publicity.
> > > When we
> > > redo the P&P to split out bylaws, we should correct and probably 
> > > should put clause title in external references so that the reader 
> > > has some help if the referenced document changes clause 
> numbers. I 
> > > also noticed that
> > > 5.1.3 of the SB OM says all external statements should include in 
> > > the opening paragraph or as a footnote to that paragraph:
> > > 
> > > "This document solely represents the views of name of 
> group and does 
> > > not necessarily represent a position of either the IEEE 
> or the IEEE 
> > > Standards Association."
> > > 
> > > I don't recall seeing that statement in all our external 
> > > communications.
> > > 
> > > -------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
> > > From: "IEEE LISTSERV Server (15.0)" 
> > > To: greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET
> > > Subject: Rejected posting to STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:51:43 +0000
> > > All: 
> > > 
> > > Paul has requested that I bring a concern that I have to the 
> > > attention of the EC and that this subject be added as an 
> agenda item 
> > > for discussion by the EC in Atlanta. This message is in 
> the way of a 
> > > heads up to the members of the EC so that we can exchange 
> views on 
> > > the Ec reflector.
> > > 
> > > Briefly;
> > > My concern is that the chair of 802.16 has announced his 
> intention 
> > > of making a separate submittal to WP8F other than the joint 
> > > submittal administered by 802.18 at the direction of the 
> EC. I think 
> > > that a separate submittal by 802.16 is inappropriate and 
> contrary to 
> > > the express direction of the EC. I request that the EC 
> clarify their 
> > > direction so that all working groups will be playing on a level 
> > > playing field.
> > > Arnie Greenspan
> > > 
> > > ----------
> > > 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.
> 

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