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

Re: [802SEC] Comments to 802.15 from 802.11 on Proposed PARs



Jon,

	Thanks.  I am glad to see that we are attempting to stick with some standardized coexistence language in the PARs.

Regards,
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Rosdahl [mailto:jrosdahl@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:31 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comments to 802.15 from 802.11 on Proposed PARs

After the comments were posted to 802.15, we noted that we had grabbed the 
wrong wording.
This has been corrected.
Please refer to 
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/08/11-08-1351-01-0000-comments-to-802-15-from-802-11-on-pending-pars-novebmer-plenary.ppt

This was corrected as soon as the discrepancies were identified with the 
leadership of 802.15, and is just a delayed posting to the EC reflector.

802.11 has not changed its support of the wording worked out during the Sept 
meeting.

Slide 15 reflects the wording that was worked out.
Slide 13  reflects comments from one member of 802.11 and as the file points 
out it contains both the comments from the WG as well as some received from 
individuals.  This was properly marked in R1.

Regards,
Jon
802.11 WG Vice-Chair

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shellhammer, Steve" <sshellha@qualcomm.com>
To: "Jon Rosdahl" <jrosdahl@ieee.org>; <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:19 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Comments to 802.15 from 802.11 on Proposed PARs


Jon,

I was a little surprised to see the recommended coexistence wording on Slide 
13, which was very different than the wording in the 802.11 VHT60 PAR which 
many of us had worked so long to agree on.  I had hoped that we were 
starting to converge to some standardized coexistence language for PARs.

Can you explain why the 802.11 WG decided to recommend such different 
language to 802.15 on the NAN PAR?  Was there something about the type of 
wording that we agreed to in the VHT60 PAR that would not be applicable to 
the 802.15 NAN PAR?

I think adopting some standardized coexistence language in the PARs would be 
strongly preferred to arguing over different language in every PAR.

Regards,
Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:21 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Comments to 802.15 from 802.11 on Proposed PARs

Greetings and Salutations!!

802.11 has prepared comments for 802.15 to consider for the PARs proposed 
for consideration this week.

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/file/08/11-08-1351-00-0000-comments-to-802-15-from-802-11-on-pending-pars-novebmer-plenary.ppt

contains the comments for all 3 PARs.
A hard copy has been placed (in compliance to the LMSC P&P) in the folder 
for the 802.15 Chair.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Rosdahl
802-11 WG Vice-Chair

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl                          10871 North 5750 West
hm:801-756-1496                   Highland, UT 84003
cell:801-376-6435
office: 801-492-4023

A 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.