Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
AllThanks for the consideration of my comments. Essentially all my comments were rejected.
I was surprised that the group did not list 802.15.3c as a project that is similar is scope (which it clearly is). Ecma TC48 should have also been referenced. This is not only an easy change, it is clear that it is the correct answer.
Most important, however, is the statement of coexistence. The history of the 802 wireless groups is that coexistence is only taken seriously when the group is forced to do it. This is not something that is limited to a single wireless group, rather it is likely due to the fact that we are all busy and work very hard to develop our standards. Addressing coexistence takes time that we often don't feel we have.
In my opinion, the PAR should acknowledge the existing standards in development and include a strong statement that requires the TG to address coexistence with these standards.
James Gilb Jon Rosdahl wrote:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/08/11-08-0880-01-0vht-reponse-to-official-comments.ppt This response document was posted just prior to noon and was approved by the 802.11 WG. If you have any further questions or comments Please let Bruce, Eldad or I know. Respectfully submitted, Jon Rosdahl WG11 VC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Rosdahl 10871 North 5750 West hm:801-756-1496 Highland, UT 84003 cell:801-376-6435A Job is only necessary to eat!A Family is necessary to be happy ---------- 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.