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

RE: [802SEC] Coexistence TAG proposal

	I think the best thing going forward is to renew the Study Group so we can
write a PAR and submit it in July.  I have tried to capture your feedback
and make that part of the presentation to renew the SG.  Please take a look
at the attached and let me know what you think.

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:28 PM
To: 'Roger B. Marks'; 'Jim Lansford'
Cc: 'Tim Blaney';
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Coexistence TAG proposal


Roger is correctly describing what I recommended.  Development of a
Coexistence Recommended Practice document should be the goal of the group.
May I suggest the purpose of the document to be: define the term
"coexistence" and to recommend methods by which coexistence may be achieved
with IEEE802.  This project would require obtaining a PAR, balloting, and
IEEE SA approval.


-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Roger B.
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:14 PM
To: Jim Lansford
Cc: Tim Blaney;
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Coexistence TAG proposal


We seem to have a language misunderstanding.

The proposal refers to "Recommended Procedures" and "guidelines for
addressing coexistence of draft standards prior to sponsor ballot"
that would be subject to "75% approval vote by the members of the 802
COEX TAG". Below, you mention a 'Recommended Practice that described
for a WG how to establish that a draft "coexists" with existing
approved standards.'

What I mentioned in my comment was "tasking a coexistence TAG to
write a PAR and then a Recommended Practice on coexistence," approved
with "full balloting machinery," that, if successful, "would be
widely influential and therefore worthwhile as a published IEEE
Recommended Practice." I was trying to emphasize that I am talking
about a Recommended Practice, not some "recommended procedures". It
could also be a Guideline, but not some "guidelines".

I believe that we are talking about different things.

Paul can correct me if I am wrong, but it was clear in my mind that
what I am describing is what he suggested. I tried to be clear on
this issue in all the discussions I've had on the topic this week.


At 1:19 PM -0600 02/03/14, Jim Lansford wrote:
>	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,
>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
>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
>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
>>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,
>>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