Re: [802SEC] Executive Committee Letter Ballot on new P&P for Coexistence Assurance

["Shellhammer, Stephen J" <stephen.j.shellhammer@INTEL.COM>]

Title: RE: [802SEC] Executive Committee Letter Ballot on new P&P for Coexistence Assurance

John,

 

            Thanks.  You bring up a good point about 802.19 now being explicitly mentioned in the P&P.  I never thought about the uniqueness of that. Our primary goal was to get each WG to produce a CA documents. The 802.19 TAG got written into the P&P based on Roger’s suggestion that we use the balloting process for 802.19 to comment on the CA document.  We liked Roger’s suggestion so we adopted it.  So even though it is unique I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

Regards,

Steve

_____________________________

Steve Shellhammer

Intel Corporation

(858) 391-4570

stephen.j.shellhammer@intel.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Hawkins
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 7:50 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Executive Committee Letter Ballot on new P&P for Coe xistence Assurance

 

I approve, though with some reservation (if that is possible :-)

I note that this procedure will be the only time a TAG is "written into law" in our P&P. No other WG/TAG is mentioned by name in the entire P&P (802.1 is mentioned as the architecture standard,  but not as a WG). 802.19 not only is codified in this way, it also is given rights and responsibilities unlike any other WG/TAG. This is a significant precedent.

I am, however, persuaded by the argument that co-existence is of such paramount importance (if 802 wireless standards are to remain relevant) that it deserves it's own watchdog group. And if the way to go about this is to institutionalize 802.19 via this procedure, then it's the right thing to do. If it all goes wrong, we can always change the P&P again...

I would also support Paul's wording recommendations.

I understand Roger's concerns about ambiguity, but would defer to 802.19 to implement a more clear set of policies, recommended practices and guidelines (as is their charter) that would address how a CA doc should be judged.

Thanks,
john
Optical Product & Solutions Marketing
Tel 770 708 7375 (ESN 268)
Fax 770 708 7376 * jhawkins@nortelnetworks.com
Nortel Networks, Mail drop 46D/03/F60
5405 Windward Parkway, Alpharetta GA 30004, USA

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.shellhammer@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:30 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] Executive Committee Letter Ballot on new P&P for Coexistence Assurance

 

IEEE 802 Executive Committee,

           This is a 30-day letter ballot on 802 Policies and Procedures changes for Coexistence Assurance.  The ballot is attached.  Please send your vote and your comments to the EC email reflector.  After the ballot closes Tom Siep and I will compile all the comments into a spreadsheet for comment resolution.

Regards,
Steve
_____________________________
Steve Shellhammer
Intel Corporation
(858) 391-4570
stephen.j.shellhammer@intel.com

---------- 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.