| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Edward,
Thanks for the response.
For the record, I want to explain why I’m maintaining my DIS:
(a) The draft statement says that it supports the Draft Opinion’s statement about technology neutrality. “Technology neutrality” is not defined in the documents, but I believe that the RSPG would follow the definition of GSMA, which says "In the context of mobile communications, technology neutrality enables the flexible use of subsequent 3GPP standards within licensed frequency bands… The real focus of technology neutrality is to allow mobile operators to replace older equipment in a frequency band with equipment of a newer standard to move from 2G to 3G, or 3G to 4G or 5G”. I don’t see any need for IEEE 802 to take a position in support of that concept. As best I can understand, intention of the draft 802 statement is basically that "we support technology neutrality as long as it means something entirely different from the definition of the mobile industry but we aren't providing our alternative definition."
(b) I understand the statement about industrial sites, since the proprietor can restrict the devices operating therein. But I cannot understand how this can extend to the typical stadium scenario. Sure, the stadium can provide APs that support the cited scheduling mechanisms; however, it cannot easily prevent the patrons from carrying devices that operate without regard to those scheduling mechanisms. If the cited mechanism can actually control the network QoS in the presence of legacy devices, then a citation to demonstrate that should be added.
(c) I don’t understand why wide channel bandwidth (up tp 320 MHz) supports “high determinism”. For example, how does the “determinism" compare when two users share 320 MHz, as compared to each user getting a clear 160 MHz? A citation would be helpful.
Cheers,RogerOn Aug 22, 2023, 9:44 AM -0600, Edward Au <edward.ks.au@gmail.com>, wrote:
Dear Roger,
Thanks for your review and comment on the draft response to RSPG's consultation (18-23/0085r4).
The authors reviewed your comment and addressed many of your comments that are available at:Please note:
a) the authors did not consider removing the paragraph related to technology neutrality. The main reason is that, as per the DRAFT Opinion Item 5 of the RSPG's consultation, it states "Recognises that technology neutrality and spectrum sharing are applicable and the existing harmonised bands for ECS will be also made available for 6G. Further, there is a need to assess the suitability of harmonised technical conditions to support the long-term development of 6G in the bands as it has been done for 5G". The authors did, however, modify the first sentence of the paragraph to emphasize that they are responding to their DRAFT opinion on this particular item. .
b) the authors did not remove the term "stadium" as per your comment. Many stadiums have enterprise Wi-Fi installed for event attendees (similar to BYO device use in many enterprise office deployments), so this case should not be deleted.
Please kindly review and let us know if you have any further comments, questions, or concerns.
Regards,
Edward
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:03 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Roger,Thanks for your comments. Recorded your DISAPPROVE vote. I will talk to the authors and see if they can provide responses to your comments and suggestions before the end of the ballot.
Voter Role Name NV APP DIS ABS DNV CH Paul Nikolich DNV VC James PK Gilb DNV VC Roger Marks DIS TR George Zimmerman DNV RS John D'Ambrosia DNV ES Jon W Rosdahl APP 01 Glenn Parsons APP 03 David Law DNV 11 Dorothy Stanley APP 15 Clint Powell DNV 16 Roger Marks NV 18 Edward Au APP 19 Steve Shellhammer/Tuncer Baykas APP 21 Subir Das NV 22 Apurva Mody NV 24 Tim Godfrey DNV ME Geoffrey Thompson NV ME Clint Chaplin NV Totals 18 5 5 1 0 7 Regards,
Edward
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:19 PM Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:Edward,
I vote Disapprove, with comments attached.
Cheers,RogerOn Aug 15, 2023, 8:22 AM -0600, Edward Au <edward.ks.au@gmail.com>, wrote:
Dear colleagues,
With this email I would like to announce the start of a LMSC ballot on a comment submission to European Commission Radio Spectrum Public Group (RSPG)’s consultation on DRAFT Opinion on “The development of 6G and possible implications for spectrum needs and guidance on the rollout of future wireless broadband networks”.
Paul has delegated to me to conduct a LMSC (EC) 10-day electronic ballot on the motion below to approve the comments to the administration. This EC motion is per IEEE 802 OM 7.2.1 Procedure, P&P 7.1 b) (majority response) and P&P 7.1.2 (2/3 approval of votes cast) for communication with government bodies and public statements. With that we would like to see everyone respond.
Move to approve document https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/23/18-23-0085-04-0000-proposed-response-to-european-commission-rspg-on-development-of-6g.pdf for submission to the European Commission RSPG’s consultation before the contribution deadline, with editorial license granted to the 802.18 chair.
- Approved in the RR-TAG: _15_ / _0_ / _0_ (The Chair did not vote)
Mover: Edward Au
Seconder: Dorothy Stanley
Start of ballot: 15 August 2023
Close of ballot: 24 August 2023
Reference document: https://radio-spectrum-policy-group.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/RSPG23-026final-draft_RSPG_Opinion_on_6G_development_with_Annexes.pdf
Regards,
Edward
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:28 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@gmail.com> wrote:Dear EC members,
I would like to request the review of the following draft IEEE 802 submission by Monday 14 August 2023 A.O.E, before proceeding to either a 10-day letter ballot tentatively on Tuesday 15 August 2023.
Background:
On 16 June 2023, European Commission Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) began a consultation asking for public opinion on DRAFT Opinion on “The development of 6G and possible implications for spectrum needs and guidance on the rollout of future wireless broadband networks”. For this DRAFT Opinion, there are a few misconceptions on the implementation and applications of IEEE 802.11 based standards. A few individuals prepared a response asking the administration to address these misconceptions. The proposed response was discussed in the most recent IEEE 802.18 teleconference and approved by a motion with 15 Yes, 0 No, and 0 Abstain.
Link to the draft:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/23/18-23-0085-04-0000-proposed-response-to-european-commission-rspg-on-development-of-6g.pdf
Reference:
https://radio-spectrum-policy-group.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/RSPG23-026final-draft_RSPG_Opinion_on_6G_development_with_Annexes.pdf
Thanks and Regards,
Edward
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1