Re: [802SEC] Confusion regarding document 18-15/0016
James,
Agreed that we should make clear that IEEE 802 is eager to support coexistence methods with other standards and primary users in all bands. Since we may want to avoid further editing of the report that can be left to the IEEE 802 Sponsor's cover letter/letter of transmittal to the FCC. That document is Paul's to attach when he forwards the report to the FCC. I am somewhat reluctant to "put" words into Paul's mouth. The cover letter/letter of conveyance can and should reflect his views of the DSRC report. If he agrees we can leave it to him to develop the cover letter and not put it up for EC approval. It is simply the means of conveying to the FCC what the DSRC report represents. It should give the IEEE 802 Sponsor ample opportunity to show that IEEE 802 is not endorsing the report; it simply represents the proceedings of the Tiger Team.
There is, of course, the report of the results of the Tiger Team. I totally agree that we need to make plain that IEEE 802 does not endorse any particular conclusions in the report. What we are providing is simply a report of what the Tiger Team's work was. That clarification can be provided in the cover letter/letter of transmittal that Paul will add to the report.
If the latter is acceptable then we will ballot a single document, the Tiger Team Report. Or are there other views on this? Simply balloting the Tiger Team Report, while allowing Paul the latitude to develop the cover letter, may be the simplest way forward.
Best regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: James Gilb [mailto:jpgilb@gmail.com] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: 16 March, 2015 15:46
To: Michael Lynch; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Confusion regarding document 18-15/0016
Mike
If you want to forward both to the FCC, then I think it should be clear in both documents the status with respect to IEEE 802, i.e., that is a report of the Tiger Team's work and that IEEE 802 does not endorse any particular conclusions in the report.
IMHO: We should add that IEEE 802 is eager to support coexistence methods with other standards and primary users in all bands, or some similar language.
James Gilb
On 03/16/2015 11:38 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
> James,
>
> I think that I hear you saying that a redrafted cover letter should also be balloted. Presumably that could be done separately from the report itself, as a second document to be balloted. Or do you see it as included as a part of the report.
>
> BR,
>
> Mike
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: James P. K. Gilb<mailto:gilb@ieee.org>
> Sent: 3/16/2015 13:26
> To:
> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Confusion regarding document 18-15/0016
>
> Rich
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> One thing that I thought was confusing and perhaps not well stated in
> the the document was that this is a report and does not represent the
> consensus of IEEE 802 or any of its Working Groups. The former
> requires
> 2/3 and the latter 75% approval.
>
> I think a summary of the results of the task is appropriate to issue
> from the EC, but it should be clear in the cover letter and document
> that this is a report of activity but not a conclusion or endorsement.
>
> As you state, showing that the IEEE 802 community wants to work with
> other stakeholders to share frequency bands is a very good thing.
> That should be stated in the cover letter as well.
>
> It is not clear to me at this time that the cover letter and document
> stated these things clearly. It could be that I simply missed where
> they were in the documents.
>
> James Gilb
>
> On 03/13/2015 08:51 AM, Rich Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>
>> All:
>>
>>
>>
>> What the 802.18 Chair should have presented is an explanation of the
>> project, and what this document represents. This is now going to
>> become a reflector review and approval, so let me take this early
>> step of explaining what this document is all about.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. In a 2013 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the FCC proposed
>> unlicensed sharing of the U-NII-4 band (5850-5925 MHz). This band
>> currently has an allocation for Dedicated Short Range Devices (DSRC)
>> for the Intelligent Transport Systems, which currently uses a version
>> of IEEE 802.11p as its wireless technology.
>>
>> 2. This sharing would be regulated under the rules of FCC Part 15, which
>> means we cannot interfere with the ITS because it has a primary allocation.
>> In order for us to engage the DSRC community to find a sharing
>> mechanism they would approve, I set up a Tiger Team comprised of
>> members of the WLAN community and the DSRC community.
>>
>> 3. There were two major reasons for this approach
>>
>> a. There was a chance we could define a mechanism that they would be
>> able to accept as not harmful to their safety-of-life network, and we
>> would share with DSRC in a similar fashion to our sharing in other
>> bands with radars, FSS installations, etc.
>>
>> b. We had to show the FCC that we were willing to work with the DSRC, as
>> the FCC would be responsible for letting us share, so they were very
>> concerned that this be a solution that both sides agreed to. This
>> tends to foster good relations with the regulator. With many more
>> bands queued up for sharing, I felt that building trust with the FCC
>> was critical for this, and for future sharing opportunities. The FCC
>> Chairman even mentioned our Tiger Team on a couple of occasions,
>> asking that a Senate bill to rush opening of the upper 5 GHz band wait for results from our effort.
>>
>> 4. After 20 months of trying to reach an agreement, which almost
>> happened last November, it became clear that the two sides could not
>> agree on a solution. At that point I asked the Tiger Team chair to
>> gather some opinions from both sides, which he did with a series of straw polls.
>>
>> 5. I did not ask the Regulatory SC to vote to approve the report, which
>> draws no conclusions, make no suggestion and states only that a
>> compromise could not be reached. In a small group, any concerned
>> party can find enough votes to avoid approving the report. Especially
>> one as small as 802.18. I therefore asked the full 802.11 WG to vote,
>> so it truly represented the undistorted view of the full WG. Here it
>> passed by 53-48; in the SC a straw poll was noticeably different.
>>
>> 6. The 802.11 WG motion read: Believing that the report in document
>> 11-15/0347r0 represents the work of the DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team,
>> forward it to 802.18 for approval to send to the EC for its approval
>> and submittal to the FCC. ".represents the work of the Tiger Team",
>> which it factually did.
>>
>> 7. By sending the report to the FCC, where we clearly state that no
>> consensus was reached, but that we tried hard to reach one, we still
>> could show the FCC our good faith effort. In the RR-TAG vote, we were
>> forced to remove section 11, because straw poll results were slightly
>> skewed towards the DSRC preferred mechanism, and some members wanted
>> to take it out because they felt that slight edge could be
>> misinterpreted. However, it was clearly stated in the report that 57%
>> of the straw poll respondents were from the DSRC side.
>>
>> 8. The motion to approve sending the report was simply an effort to send
>> the full results of the Tiger Team work to the FCC. There was no IEEE
>> endorsement and no conclusions.
>>
>> 9. When we removed section 11 and added the note to the abstract that
>> there was no (Tiger Team) consensus among the participants, we
>> created a new document with this clean version: 18-15/0016r0. This
>> should have been motioned at the EC meeting; not the r1 version. I
>> was told that an EC member was going to ask us to remove two
>> references that were orphaned when section
>> 11 was removed, so rather than take EC time to edit the document, I
>> created a version that deleted those references. While doing that I
>> made an editorial change, removing the line numbering along the left
>> side of the text. Otherwise it is identical to r0.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, the 802.18 Chair did not explain any of this, and I
>> apologize for the confusion it caused.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope you use this email as a starting point for your review of the
>> Tiger Team report, and vote to approve sending it to the FCC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rich Kennedy
>>
>> Manager, New Technology Development
>>
>> <http://www.mediatek.com/> MediaTek Inc.
>>
>> <mailto:rich.kennedy@mediatek.com> rich.kennedy@mediatek.com
>>
>> (832) 298-1114
>>
>>
>>
>> Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum & Regulatory TG Chair
>>
>> Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces TTG Chair
>>
>> Wi-Fi Alliance White Spaces MTG Vice-chair
>>
>> IEEE802.11 TGaf (WLAN in White Spaces) Chair
>>
>> IEEE802.11/15 Regulatory SC Chair
>>
>> IEEE 802.11/18 Liaison
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.