Title: Response to claims in the closing WG plenary of session #62, supported by the contribution C802.16-09/0007

Document Number: IEEE C80216-09/0008Date Submitted: 2009-08-31

Source:Mariana Goldhamer Alvarion E-mail: marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com Wu Xuyong Huawei. E-mail: wuxuyong@huawei.comHarry Bims Bims Laboratories E-mail: harrybims@bimslabs.com

Venue Session #63, Jeju, 31 August – 3 Sept.2009Base Contribution:Purpose:

Respond to Ron Murias claims in the closing plenary of 802.16 Session #62 regarding the inappropriate implementation of the group resolutions to comments 777 and 786 in 802.16h SB. We demonstrate here that the 16h/D8 draft was implemented according to the group decisions in the comment database IEEE 802.16-08/047r4. We also address the clarifications to the 802.16-2009 definitions of “license-exempt bands” .

Notice:This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.

Release:The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.16.

Patent Policy:The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures:

<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>.Further information is located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat >.

Verbal claims in the closing plenary of 802.16 session #62

• Ron Murias had claims and used contribution C802.16-09/0007 to exemplify with text quotes– The exemplifications in C802.16-09/0007 addressed the text in

P802.16a/D7a (Aug. 2008)– The claims shown below were reproduced from some

collective memory and may not fully represent what was said in the meeting

• Claim 1: Resolutions to comments 777 and 786 were not correctly implemented– This issue was enforced by Carl Eklund accusations– Our assessment: Resolutions were properly implemented since

Nov. 2008

Comment 777 – see the Group Resolution

Implementation of the resolution to Comment 777

• “Non-exclusively assigned” was reverted back to “license-exempt”. The document

P80216h_D8delta.pdf shows the changes done on page 2, lines 1 and 5, and

page 9, lines 55(deleted) and 60(replaced) – see next slide

• Other text including “non-exclusively assigned” was deleted from 1, 6.4.1.3 and 15.7, as result of resolutions to other comments – see the next 2nd slide

• There is no remaining text including “Non-exclusively assigned”

• Clause 3.117 was changed as indicated – see the next third slide

Revert-back “non-exclusively assigned” to “license-exempt”

Deletion of other text including “not-exclusively assigned”

• The text below was not reverted because it was deleted based on resolutions to other comments

Implementation of the 2nd part of the resolution to comment 777

Conclusion on comment 777

• The Group Resolution was correctly implemented in P802.16h/D8– Implementation date: November 2008

Comment 786 – see the Group Resolution

Resolution Implemented for Comment 786

• Clauses 3.125 and 3.126 in P802.16h/D7a were removed:

Conclusion on comment 786

• The Group Resolution was correctly implemented in P802.16h/D8– Implementation date: November 2008

Un-changed text in P802.16h/D8

• In contribution C802.16/09-0007 is indicated text which was not changed. We do not see any reason for the Editor to make changes to text which is different from:

• Comment 777: “non-exclusively assigned”; the text which was quoted includes:– Non-exclusive nature, Non-exclusive assignment, – Subject to non-exclusive assignment– Exclusive assignment– Shared band

• Comment 786: the definitions 3.137 and 3.138; the other definitions quoted in C802.16-09/0007 are:– 3.155 Exclusive Assignment: A situation whereby a channel is occupied by

a single (licensed) known operator.– 3.156 Exclusive License: A situation the same as Exclusive Assignment

whereby a channel is occupied by a single (licensed) known operator. – 3.172 Shared Band: A generic term used to describe bands in which more

than one wireless service or application operates in the same geographical location.

Claim 2: P802.16h text is extending the License-exempt scope

• The “license-exempt frequencies or bands” are defined in IEEE 802.16-2009, as follows (our colored highlights). The words “licensed” or “licensing” are used four times:

• “It is recognized that some administrations require notification of terminal location for certain services in some license-exempt bands, which is a form of licensing. Conversely, it is possible to have uncoordinated usage within a licensed allocation. In these and other similar cases, the pertinent issues for license-exempt usage remain as described in the preceding paragraph.

In the context of this standard, the use of the term “license-exempt frequencies” or “license-exempt bands” should be taken to mean the situation where licensing authorities do not coordinate individual assignments of frequency bands to operators, regardless of whether the spectrum in question has a particular regulatory status as license-exempt or licensed.”

In 802.16h were added more clarifications

• The spectrum in which there were no “coordinated frequency assignments” per operator was named in 16h “shared” or “non-exclusively assigned”

• Was explained the term “light-licensing”• Exemplification of an P802.16h clarification, using

basically the same words as in 802.16-2009 and not introducing any new definition:– “An example is the use of the term light licensing, where

terminal location registration may be required but frequency assignments are not coordinated, and should be treated in the same way as license-exemption in this context.”

Conclusion: In P802.16h was introduced a better language

• In some places, instead-of using “license-exempt” was used the generic term “not-exclusively assigned” which includes both licensed-exempt and “licensing with no individual frequency assignments”, in line with 802.16-2009

Claim 3: Comments 606 and 591 are also a reason for “disapprove” of other people

• These comments, by Peter Ecclesine, asked for text changes which were implemented in Nov. 2008

• Peter Ecclesine switched to “Approve” in Recirc. 2 (April 2009)– There are no problems with these comments

Conclusions

• No issues were found regarding the implementation of the comments 777 and 786

• The “license-exempt” is already defined in IEEE 802.16-2009 and includes the licensed regulatory regime, when there are no individual frequency assignments per operator

• The text in P802.16h is not changing the meaning of the definition; it is only improving the language by introducing the term “not-exclusively assigned”– This improvement is not absolutely needed and could be

removed

General observations

• The “issues” related to the comment implementation was risen directly in the WG plenary in July 2009, in the very last minute, 7 months after P802.16h/D8 was produced in Dec. 2008 and was initiated the first Recirc.– The next available 802.16h SB Recirc 1 (Dec. 2008) and Recirc. 2 (April

2009) were not used• The commenter had no comments related to the issue of

“licensed-exempt” in the 802.16h SB Recirc. 1 or Recirc. 2– The way to resolve problems related to the wording in a draft is by

submitting comments in the SB process• Accusations have NOT been confirmed by the careful

examination of the material