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

RE: [802SEC] Report rules change procedure for PARs




Thanks for your response, Roger.

I have explained my thoughts in context below. I trust that you can now
trust the proposal.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks
To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
Cc: 'stds-802-sec@ieee.org '; Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)
Sent: 3/14/2002 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Report rules change procedure for PARs

Vic:

Here is some detail.

Regarding "For a wireless project to be authorized the PAR shall 
address the level of coexistence with other IEEE 802 wireless 
standards and projects and with other users of the spectrum":

(1) My impression was that Bob Heile was clear that he didn't want 
this clause added without a clear definition of coexistence.

VH--> We discussed the item at some length at saw that the policy
      statement Bob needed was not the subject of this rules
      change, bu of a coexistence group, over some time.
      I try to accommodate Bob's concern by stating "levels of
      coexistence"

(2) Several comments asked for the deletion of the word "wireless".

VH--> The deletion they wanted was in the regulatory conformance.
      The coexistnece was really a wireless medium issue.
      Tony showed it clearly:
d) Regulatory conformity; 
e) For wireless projects, spectrum sharing feasibility 

I am satisfied with the Regulatory conformance part.

I think the project management aspect introduces an additional level 
of SEC oversight that could lead to a lot of headaches. I forgot that 
Geoff had suggested this sort of thing; now I think I remember him 
mentioning it as a solution to the "six-months max without a PAR" 
problem. So I guess I can live with it (especially if we assign the 
administration of the issue to the LMSC Vice Chair).

Roger



At 6:53 PM +0000 02/03/14, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>  Roger,
>
>The Project Management item came from the comment resolution meeting we
held
>on Sunday. It was Geoff, with his experience in the matter at all
levels,
>brought the object in.
>
>Have you got more detailed concerns about the response to the ballot?
>
>Regards
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks
>To: Hayes, Vic (Vic)
>Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; carlstevenson@agere.com
>Sent: 3/14/2002 1:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Report rules change procedure for PARs
>
>Vic,
>
>I don't think this resolution is responsive to the comments received
>in the ballot. Also, the section on "Conditional approval" seems
>(unless I am missing something) to be unrelated to any comment. I
>also think it is problematic. Therefore, my inclination is to
>continue to Disapprove.
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 10:56 PM +0000 02/03/13, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>>Dear SEC,
>>
>>Following the comment resolution meeting on Sunday, I worked with my
>group
>>to follow-up on your advices.
>>
>>All additions to the existing rules are given in red font.
>>
>>If you have any suggestion for improvement, please contact me in
>Midnight
>  >Specialbefore 11 AM. That way we have the opportunity to tray and
make
>a new
>  >version.
>  >
>  >Regards