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

RE: [802SEC] Coexistence TAG proposal

	Thanks for the prompt comments...they are very helpful.

	I was attempting to capture the concept that you, Paul, and I had
discussed - creation of a Recommended Practice that described for a WG how
to establish that a draft "coexists" with existing approved standards, which
has to establish at the outset what "coexistence" means.
	I then tried to go beyond that to describe an ongoing role that the TAG
would play in advising SEC about whether a draft indeed met the Recommended
Practice.  These are certainly sequential; in my view, we need to:
	a) Establish a definition of coexistence that is ratified by the WGs
	b) Using that definition as a basis, write a Recommended Practice that
describes to the WGs how to achieve "coexistence" (e.g., a TG needs to show,
either by analysis or simulation, that a proposed draft coexists by
quantifying the degradation due to interaction with other IEEE wireless
standards, under the assumption of a set of usage models.)  This Recommended
Practice would clearly need to be ratified either at the SEC level, the WG
level, or both.
	c) Once a recommended practice is in place, someone (could be the TAG,
could be SEC members) needs to assess whether a draft has complied with the
recommended practice.  The foils suggest that the TAG could have an ongoing
role in doing this; as we discussed yesterday, the individual SEC members
could certainly form their own opinions individually without having a TAG
weigh in.  That's for the SEC to decide, I'd say.

	It wasn't my intent to appear to put the cart before the horse...if the
foils don't reflect the sequence of events above, then they may need to be
reworked some.  If the SEC members would rather have the TAG do only steps
a) and b), we can certainly make those changes, but I wanted to lay out the
whole roadmap.

	Let me know your thoughts about going forward.


-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Roger B.
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:25 AM
To: Jim Lansford
Cc: Tim Blaney;
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Coexistence TAG proposal


Thanks for the chance to preview this.

What I'm seeing here is a proposal for "a committee that reviews and
makes coexistence recommendations to ExCom on current or proposed
PARs and WG draft standards".

I'm surprised that this proposal doesn't mention tasking a
coexistence TAG to write PAR and then a Recommended Practice on
coexistence. Paul mentioned this idea at the Sunday rules meeting; I
liked the idea a lot and it it seemed to have some traction. It's
been the basis of every discussion I've had this week on the purpose
of the coexistence TAG.

The proposal does say: "First order of business: Define Coexistence
and the Recommended Procedures for establishing whether a draft has
adequately addressed coexistence." Sounds similar to Paul's
suggestion, but I don't like it as such. I think that this kind of
work deserves the full balloting machinery. I also think that, if
successful, the result would be widely influential and therefore
worthwhile as a published IEEE Recommended Practice.

There seems to be wide recognition that there is no point in trying
to assess whether coexistence has been achieved until there is a
clear and specific view of what that means. Balloted or not, I think
creating this view will take a long time, and it not guaranteed to
reach a result. Given this time delay and uncertainty, I think that
the proposal is ahead of itself in its focus on how it will evaluate
PARs and drafts. I think we should postpone any request for such a
charter until after the TAG has concluded the Recommended Practice on
which it expects to base its evaluations.

My position on this issue has evolved and is evolving, and I am open
to further enlightenment. However, at the moment, I prefer Paul's


At 9:23 AM -0600 02/03/14, Jim Lansford wrote:
>Greetings all,
>	Based on discussions within the BoF and among SEC members,
>Tim Blaney and I
>have put together this proposal for a Coexistence TAG for discussion at the
>SEC meeting tomorrow.  Feel free to send me comments in advance; I believe
>there is consensus that coexistence is an area IEEE802 needs to address, so
>I want to make sure we set this up in a way everybody can buy into.
>Best regards,
>P.S. Bob O'Hara - please set aside time on the agenda for Friday PM for
>this, in consultation with Paul.  Thanks.
>Jim Lansford, Ph.D.
>Phone: +1 405 377 6170
>Fax: +1 425 671 6099
>Mobile: +1 405 747 5229