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

Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

I'd like to address the USDOT statement in the Tiger Team Final Report.  I realize Steve and others who did not participate in the TT might not know this, but USDOT personnel participated throughout the Tiger Team and consistently expressed the same points that they did in the report.  For example, here is an excerpt from the May 30, 2014 Tiger Team meeting minutes (11-14-0730r0):

 

8. Jim [Arnold, USDOT] stated that the Qualcomm proposal is inconsistent with the premise of the spectrum sharing concept proposed in the FCC’s NPRM.  It would require moving the vehicle-to-vehicle safety channel adjacent to the high powered vehicle-to-infrastucture channel and the Control Channel potentally subjecting all three to adjacent channel interference.  It would also, potentially, limit DSRC to three protected channels which is insufficient to support all safety applications.  Further, it would invalidate years of safety application testing and international standards development and harmonization work.

9. He stated that the Cisco proposal has possibilities, but that there is insufficient detail to make a determination of its true impact.

 
So, any notion that the USDOT statement in the Final Report came as a surprise is misplaced.  I'll also point out that no objection to the USDOT statement was raised during the Berlin REG SC meeting, the 802.11 plenary, or the 802.18 meeting.  
 
With respect, I think the confusion here is with the statement "I do not think the IEEE should approve a document ..."  As Adrian pointed out, the motion in the IEEE 802.11 WG was not about endorsement, it was simply to forward the report.  The Tiger Team had its own voice.  No one is asking IEEE 802 to agree with that voice.  We're only asking IEEE 802 to close the loop with the FCC, as it promised to do in Feb. 2014, by forwarding the actual Tiger Team report.  If you read it and don't agree with it, you can say so in the cover letter. 

Thanks for your consideration,
John Kenney

 
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Shellhammer, Steve <sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
 

Mike,

 

               I cannot support approval of document IEEE 802.18-15/16r1.   It contains Appendix D which provides the opinion of the US DOT regarding the two proposals.  It is my understanding that the Tiger Team never reviewed that appendix.  Also, the opinions of that appendix are the opposite of those expressed by the members of the IEEE 802.11 regulatory standing committee, as shown in the straw poll taken at the March Plenary.  I do not think the IEEE should approve a document which does not have the support of its members.  If another organization (e.g. DOT) has a position they can express it to the FCC through their own submission, it should not be submitted by the IEEE when the two groups have different positions.

 

               At the 802.18 meeting in Berlin a similar section (Section 11) was removed since there were a number of members who opposed it.  If the meeting had not been so rushed I think the group would not have missed removing Appendix D, but time was short and so it got missed at the time.

 

               I could support a motion to approve a revised version of the document with Appendix D removed.

 

Regards,

Steve

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger Marks

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

 

I would vote Disapprove on this motion simply based on these issues:

 
*The language on the slide has been documented as false (in that the RR-TAG did not approve version of the report being proposed for approval).
*It's written as two motions, but it will presumably be one vote.
*The first of these motions is full of ambiguous clutter that makes it unclear whether we are approving a document as it exists or whether we are approving further revisions to that document.
*The second of these motions is to approve a cover letter that was written before we spent weeks trying to figure out what's going on here.
*The Chair is granted editorial privileges. If the Chair has editorial preferences, he can make those known when the draft is prepared for ballot.
 
This proposal just returns us to the mess of March 13. After all this discussion and "clarification", let's vote on a motion to approve a specific report document and a specific cover letter document, period.
 
Roger
 
 
Paul Nikolich wrote:

Mike,

 

The cover letter needs significant improvement and the motion should include background as part of the motion in a 'whereas' preamble.  I specifically think the preamble should capture the essence of James' 02APR email, which I believe is an accurate summary of the situation.  I will then be able to use a derivative of the preamble for the cover letter.

 

Regards,

 

--Paul

 

------ Original Message ------

From: "Michael Lynch" <MJLynch@mjlallc.com>

Sent: 4/8/2015 2:07:47 PM

Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

Paul,

 

Please find attached the draft motion. I just realized that Apurva is still listed as the second but that can be changed, if necessary, as the ballot progresses.

 

I did presume that everyone on the EC has read the timeline that you sent. To make things simpler in Mentor I have created a new document number that is only for the draft motion, 18-15-0023-00. Much of the text is taken from what Apurva and I created during the EC closing meeting in Berlin.

 

Please note that in the coming week I will be traveling back to Europe and may be offline for two days.

 

Best regards,

 

Mike

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich

Sent: 7 April, 2015 11:47
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

 

Mike,

 

Please consider the updated time line document I just posted and all the EC discussion on this matter to date and prepare a draft motion you believe will gain EC approval. Then send the draft motion to EC reflector for review and comment before crafting final motion text and obtain a second.

 

Regards,

 

--Paul

 

------ Original Message ------

From: "Michael Lynch" <MJLynch@mjlallc.com>

Sent: 4/1/2015 12:07:36 PM

Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

Paul,

 
During the last portion of the EC closing Apurva and I  did develop a revised motion which was never presented. Do you want that motion to be presented for an EC email ballot? Do you want to review it prior to starting an EC email ballot? In any case I'll need to get back to the laptop that I used in Berlin later today.
 
BR,
 
Mike
 
Sent from my Windows 8.1 Phone

From: Rich Kennedy

Sent: ‎4/‎1/‎2015 10:39
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

Paul:

 

One needed clarification. During the 802.18 meeting where the document was edited and then approved, the edited version of 11-15/0347r0 was saved as 18-15/16r0. This is the document 802.18 approved.

 

Rich Kennedy

Manager, New Technology Development

MediaTek Inc. 

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

 

 

 

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich

Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 10:28 AM
Subject: [802SEC] 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc timeline

 

Dear EC members,

 

Adrian and I have collaborated on creating a timeline (https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/15/ec-15-0029-00-00EC-dsrc-tiger-team-timeline.docx). The objective of this effort is capture the procedural steps taken by 802 in an easy-to-follow document on how 802 arrived at the current state regarding the completion of the 802.11 Regulatory Standing Committee DSRC Tiger Team ad hoc activities. 

 

Please review, correct errors and suggest enhancements.  It is important that we have an accurate context in which to make a decision on this pending matter.

 

Regards,

 

--Paul

---------- 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.

---------- 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.
 
 
--
 
John Kenney
Director and Principal Researcher
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.