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-vehic e 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
*To:* STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*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>
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
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
*To:* STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*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>
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
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 <rkennedy1000@GMAIL.COM>
*Sent: *4/1/2015 10:39
*To: *STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*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.* <http://www.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
*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
*To:* STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*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.