| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I believe there is no doubt that we will put forward the 'Draft technical report on interworking between 3GPP 5G network and WLAN' for comment collection. The question is only whether to use the current draft R3, or whether the authors of the draft get the
possibility to update their draft to address comments brought up in 11/20-1031.
I would prefer to have a cleaned-up version of the draft for commenting, i.e. allow the authors to create a revision R4 that will become the base for comment collection.
Bye
Max
From: harryhwang(王昊) <harryhwang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 04:33 To: STDS-802-11-AANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-AANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [STDS-802-11-AANI] 答复: [STDS-802-11-AANI] How to Progress the Work on the Technical Report on Interworking?(Internet mail) Hi Jo, and all,
As per approved minutes of the last telecon 20/1016, a passed straw poll is recorded,
Straw Poll: Should the AANI SC request an 802.11 WG comment collection on 11/20/0013R3: “Draft technical report on interworking between 3GPP 5G network & WLAN"? Yes: 11 No: 0 Abstain: 3
For those who is not familiar with the background of this report or the decision that we’ve made in AANI SC, I’d like to clarify the following two points. 1. the next stage for progressing this report is NOT balloting, rather it is for Comment Collection. 2. [personal opinion] the report has neither authority nor intention to interpret or explain 3GPP document TS 23.501 to this group, rather it is for exploring the answer for a ‘what if’ question. ‘What if the 802.11 stations (for both AP and client) can process this signaling or can function in this way, can the network provide better QoS for the users from an end-to-end perspective?’ We are keen to solely find out if there are any missing pieces in 802.11 spec that could make the heterogenous inter-networking be more efficient, nothing else.
Given that, I think it is not necessary to override the decision that have been already made by the group. I prefer option 2 and suggest to treat the comments in 20/1031r0 equally to other comments from the upcoming Comment Collection process.
PS1: As for option 1, we probably will end up with the same results as option 2 but delayed for additional 1 or 2 months. PS2: As a co-author of this report, I ‘d like to know other people’s opinion before addressing the comments in 20/1031r0.
Thanks.
Best Regards, Harry
发件人: Joseph Levy <jslevy@xxxxxxxx>
Dear All,
At today’s (14 July 9:00-10:00AM) AANI SC teleconference comments were provided in 11-20/1031r2 on the Draft Technical Report: 11-20/0013r3. The meeting ended prior to the AANI SC being able to make a decision on how to progress this work. (Due to poor time management on my part and technical issues with Webex.)
I believe that the AANI SC has two ways forward:
Your response: I prefer way forward: 1 or 2
Please vote your preference for 1 or 2 directly to me via e-mail: jslevy@xxxxxxxx (This can be done by replying to this e-mail, without reply all.)
Please use the reflector for all technical/procedural discussion - but not for this straw poll.
I will tabulate the results of this poll and share the result on the reflector. Note: I will not share how individuals have voted. Please reply with your preferred way forward (vote) prior to Wednesday 15 July 11:00 AM ET as I will need the result of this poll to determine how to progress the work. Thank you for your support of the AANI SC.
-- Regards, Joseph Levy 802.11 AANI Chair To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-AANI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-AANI&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-AANI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-AANI&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-AANI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-AANI&A=1 |