Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAF] Question related to 11mc and 11af changing the same table

["Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx>]

There’s also the question of whether the motivation for the change is strictly TGaf

(in which case we might need band-specific defaults),  or is generally applicable

(in which case it’s probably out of scope of TGaf).

 

Best Regards,

 

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404 825

Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900

Tel: +1 (408) 239 7485

 

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

 

From: *** 802.11 TGaf - TV White Spaces OperationTask Group *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAF@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hamilton, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:55 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAF] Question related to 11mc and 11af changing the same table

 

Well …

 

The implication of TGaf rejecting this and having REVmc do it, is that it will take longer to get into the Standard.  Whether that is acceptable or not is something TGaf should consider, along with the commenter’s arguments.

 

Also, if TGaf does have any input/thoughts on this topic, that would be helpful to REVmc’s considerations.  We (REVmc) have not made a decision on our similar comment yet.

 

Thanks.  Mark

 

From: *** 802.11 TGaf - TV White Spaces OperationTask Group *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAF@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yucek, Tevfik
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:35 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAF] Question related to 11mc and 11af changing the same table

 

Thanks Peter. I will reject this comment for now then.

 

Tevfik

 

From: Peter Ecclesine (pecclesi) [mailto:pecclesi@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:33 PM
To: Yucek, Tevfik; STDS-802-11-TGAF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Question related to 11mc and 11af changing the same table

 

Hi Tevfik,

 

   802.11af timeline completes before 11REVmc, so it is up to TGaf to decide whether to make a change.

 

petere

Peter Ecclesine, Technology Analyst

MS SJ-14-4 170 West Tasman Dr, San Jose, CA 95134-1706

Ph 408/527-0815, FAX 408/525-9256

"Time doesn't fool around."  "Without Prejudice" U.C.C. 1-207

 

 

 

From: *** 802.11 TGaf - TV White Spaces OperationTask Group *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAF@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yucek, Tevfik
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:26 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGAF] Question related to 11mc and 11af changing the same table

 

Hi Peter/All,

 

I have the following comment assigned to me. I don’t know if the commenter’s changes are approved in 11mc. Would it be ok to reject this comment and ask it to be considered in 11mc? Basically both 11mc and 11af are changing the same table at the same time. What is the timeline for Revmc?

 

2022

75

8.4.2.31

Do you really want AC_BE and AC_BK TXOP Limits to be 0?  This means that one packet of any length can be sent.  With aggregation this can be greater than what is allowed for AC_VI.  I have presented on TXOP Limits to 11mc and proposed that AC_BE and AC_BK should be set to half the TXOP Limit for AC_VI.

Set AC_BK and AC_BK TXOP Limit to 11.28ms in Table 8-105

 

 

Tevfik

 

 

Tevfik Yucek | Qualcomm Atheros Inc. | direct +1 408.652.1053 | tyucek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx