Hi Robert and all,
This is the kind reminder of the due date (Feb 22, Tuesday) for reviewing the 11bd D3.1.
If there is someone who needs more time to finish the review, please let me know.
If there is no response, I believe it is time to incorporate the resolution text for D4.0. And the additional modification from MDR report would be shown in a new redline document comparing to 11bd D4.0.
Thank you very much for your help improving the 11bd specification!
Regards,
Yujin
From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 1:58 PM
To: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Bo Sun <sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
**BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’.
Thank you Yujin,
All – please review the draft to make sure we got everything.
I believe the only things left are the MEC review (I’m still awaiting the IEEE SA response) and the MIB usage review from Joseph.
-Robert
From: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:41 PM
To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Bo Sun <sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
Hello Robert and all,
I’ve generated the interim versions to incorporate the resolutions proposed in 11bd MDR.
Both draft and redline have been posted on the member’s area (thank you Robert)
This modification is based on 11bd MDR report r10 that the 11bd group agreed proposed text to technical comments which remained pending status during Editor’s meeting on Jan.
Since all the comments from LB259 in 11bd has been resolved this week and now ready for motion this week, and according to the timeline, the D4.0 should be released immediately after its generation being approved on Mar 15, I am expecting
to start implementing LB259 CRs using the D3.1 after reviewing done.
The rest MDR comments to be submitted from now on will be incorporated into D3.2 or D4.0 depending on the circumstances.
The deadline for completing the review is: Feb 22, Tuesday.
Other than that, if there are some concerns and comments on the plan of 11bd D3.2/D4.0, please let me know.
Regards,
Yujin
From: Yujin Noh
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 10:46 AM
To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Bo Sun <sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
Hi Robert,
Thank you very much to make it clear.
I will prepare D3.1 to start implementing the comments resolved in MDR so far.
Regards,
Yujin
From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 10:42 AM
To: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
**BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’.
Hello Yujin,
If you could produce a D3.1 with most of the MDR comments resolved that would be great. We could check that. This would be an interim draft – not a draft that goes to ballot.
Any further changes we could action in the MDR report and then check with the D4.0 that will go to ballot.
The MDR process will not delay you from going to ballot. We haven’t found anything serious enough to hold up your draft.
-Robert
From: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 10:34 AM
To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
Hello all,
I am trying to clarify the MDR process as below.
As for step 6 and 7 to generate redline document, which draft version I can use? For example, comments were submitted from 11bd D3.0. Then should it be 11bd D3.0? or 11bd D4.0 is allowed to use it?
Thank you very much for your advice.
Regards,
Yujin
From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 2:12 PM
To: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
**BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’.
Hello Yujin,
Here are the fixes as discussed below:
|
TransactionID |
Type |
Status |
User |
Group |
Resource |
Ref Doc |
Ref Subclause |
Ref Location |
Name |
Req Value |
Description |
Allocated Value |
|
1305 |
Rename |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11VirtualCSonOCBSecondaryImplemented |
220 |
|||||
|
1306 |
Release |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVComplianceGroup |
25 |
I’ve documented the ANA check in r6 of the MDR report:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0021-06-0000-tgbd-mdr-report.docx
-Robert
From: Stacey, Robert
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:21 PM
To: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
Hi Yujin,
Thanks for confirming. I’ll release 1208 and rename 1296.
Regarding
I did check that you weren’t using numbers for managed objects without allocation
In doing the ANA check, I check two things.
- That the allocated numbers are used correctly
- That ANA managed numbers are NOT used without allocation
For point 2, for example, I check that the draft was not using Element IDs that had not been allocated. In the past we had some issues were a draft used a number without allocation from ANA. Sometimes the editor (or submission author) are
not aware that a particular number space is ANA administered.
-Robert
From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-editors List *** <STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Yujin Noh
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 11:40 AM
To: STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] 11bd/D3.0 MDR
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---
Hi Robert,
Thank you very much for your correction.
I double-checked and compared the modification from both MDR report and 22/33r2.
As you commented, Transaction ID 1208 should be released because it is assigned with value 126
Transaction ID 1296 for dot11NGVActived should be dot11VirtualCSonOCBSecondaryImplemented based on 22/17r1. (attached)
By the way I can’t follow the last comment
yellow-highlighted as below.
It looks like all your ANA allocations are for the MIB so once we fix these problems the ANA review is complete. (I did check that you weren’t using numbers for managed objects without
allocation)
Would you please clarity a little bit that I am not using numbers for managed objects without allocation?
Thank you.
Regards,
Yujin
From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 4:29 PM
To: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
**BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’.
Hello Yujin,
I was reviewing the ANA consistency with the draft and I saw some inconsistencies with the MIB in D3.0 and the requests below. Here are all the allocations made to TGbd:
|
TransactionID |
Type |
Status |
User |
Group |
Resource |
Ref Doc |
Ref Subclause |
Ref Location |
Name |
Req Value |
Description |
Allocated Value |
|
1206 |
Allocate |
Successful |
Bahareh Sadeghi |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVActivated |
||||||
|
1207 |
Allocate |
Successful |
Bahareh Sadeghi |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11RadioEnvironmentMeasurementPeriod |
||||||
|
1208 |
Allocate |
Successful |
Bahareh Sadeghi |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVComplianceGroup |
||||||
|
1295 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NONNGVRadioEnvironmentSupported |
||||||
|
1296 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVActivated |
||||||
|
1297 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11StationMeasurementPeriod |
||||||
|
1298 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11PhyNGVTable |
||||||
|
1302 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11PhyNGVComplianceGroup |
||||||
|
1303 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVComplianceGroup |
||||||
|
1304 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVCompliance |
We now have
dot11NGVComplianceGroup allocated under dot11Compliances and under dot11Groups. The second allocation (from dot11Groups) is correct based on the CR in 11-22/033r2 so I think the first allocation (from dot11Compliances) should be released.
dot11NGVActivated is allocated for twice. From what I can understand, I think one of these allocations should be for the object dot11VirtualCSonOCBSecondaryImplemented. Choose which is which and let me know. Or let me know what to do with
the extra one.
It looks like all your ANA allocations are for the MIB so once we fix these problems the ANA review is complete. (I did check that you weren’t using numbers for managed objects without allocation)
-Robert
From: Stacey, Robert
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:38 AM
To: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
Hello Yujin,
Here are your allocations:
|
TransactionID |
Type |
Status |
User |
Group |
Resource |
Ref Doc |
Ref Subclause |
Ref Location |
Name |
Req Value |
Description |
Allocated Value |
|
1295 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NONNGVRadioEnvironmentSupported |
||||||
|
1296 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVActivated |
||||||
|
1297 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11StationMeasurementPeriod |
||||||
|
1298 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11PhyNGVTable |
||||||
|
1302 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11PhyNGVComplianceGroup |
||||||
|
1303 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVComplianceGroup |
||||||
|
1304 |
Allocate |
Pending |
Yujin Noh |
IEEE Std 802.11-2020 |
C.3 |
dot11NGVCompliance |
Note:
The request values for dot11NONNGVRadioEnvironmentSupported and dot11StationMeasurementPeriod are already taken by 11bc.
You have two requests for dot11PhyNGVComplianceGroup. I think (based on the names) that what I have allocated is correct.
-Robert
From: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:37 PM
To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
Hi Robert,
Thank you very much to arrange and review the 11bd MDR during the editor’s meeting.
As discussed, I would like to request the ANA allocation as below.
- MDR document r5,
- dot11NONNGVRadioEnvironmentSupported OBJECT-TYPE
- dot11StationConfigEntry
209 (assigned temporarily by reviewer)
- dot11NGVActivated OBJECT-TYPE
- dot11StationConfigEntry <ANA>
- dot11StationMeasurementPeriod OBJECT-TYPE
- dot11StationConfigEntry
208 (assigned temporarily by reviewer)
- dot11PhyNGVTable OBJECT-TYPE
- dot11phy
37 (assigned temporarily by reviewer)
- dot11PhyNGVComplianceGroup OBJECT-GROUP
- dot11Compliances
26 (assigned temporarily by reviewer)
- 22/0033r2 in 11bd comment resolution (attached)
- dot11NGVComplianceGroup OBJECT-GROUP
- dot11Groups<ANA>
- dot11PhyNGVComplianceGroup OBJECT-GROUP
- dot11Groups<ANA>
- dot11NGVCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
- dot11Compliances <ANA>
I am not sure whether this is the proper request form for ANA allocation, please let me know if something I need to provide more.
Regards,
Yujin
From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
**BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’.
Apologies Yujin,
We did clash on revisions and I do see an r4. It looks like you latest has everything except a few minor issues, so we will review using that as the baseline.
-Robert
From: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 11:50 AM
To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: 11bd/D3.0 MDR
Hello All,
I was drafting the MRD report r2 based on the feedback from Peter, Yongho, Edward, and Carol Ansley.
Now r2 has been updated by Robert, I just uploaded it with r3 which including initial TGbd editor’s response.
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0021-03-0000-tgbd-mdr-report.docx
I will be back with r4 after checking the Emily’s comments if time allows.
Regards,
Yujin
From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-editors List *** <STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Stacey, Robert
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 11:37 AM
To: STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] 11bd/D3.0 MDR
**BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’.
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---
Hello All,
I uploaded r2 of the report:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0021-02-0000-tgbd-mdr-report.docx
This revision has the findings from Peter, Emily and Edward.
Regards,
-Robert
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-EDITORS list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-EDITORS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-EDITORS list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-EDITORS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-EDITORS list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-EDITORS&A=1