Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAY] Out of scope comments from LB239

Chris,

 

Document 18/2079 included TPC related CIDs and since CID 3634 caused controversial discussion in the team, it was decided to remove it by rejecting it to avoid unnecessary delay for the other CIDs.

However the technical issue was not resolved.

As part of the Draft 3.0 review this issue was revisited and I concluded that per STS feedback is important not only for TDD mode. Please note that 802.11ay should support MIMO for all EDMG operation modes not only TDD.

This is a technical issue with a feature with is basic to the EDMG operation.

All your points don’t address this at all.

 

Thank you,

Alecs

 

From: Christopher Hansen <hansencj@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 9:42 AM
To: Alecsander Eitan <eitana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGAY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAY] Out of scope comments from LB239

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Alecs,

 

In reference to the CIDs below, my understanding is that CIDs 4035 and 4434 are substantially the same as CID 3634 from letter ballot 2.0, which the group agreed to reject at the meeting in January.  The rejection resolution is in a document (IEEE 802.11-18/2079r3) in which you are the first author.  

 

I don't understand your remark that "Limiting the CIDS just to changed text from previous draft looks unreasonable and bureaucratic."  I am asking the task group to follow the IEEE-SA rules, one of which is that the scope of comments on a re-circulation ballot is "limited to changed portions of the document or unresolved comments".  The particular section in your new CID 4035 is 10.44.5, which did not changed from D2.0 to D3.0.  Therefore, a comment on this section would only be in scope if it had been made on a previous letter ballot and not be resolved. However, CID 3634 was resolved by your own contribution.  Are you arguing that your contribution did not resolve the comment or are you arguing that the task group does not need to follow the IEEE-SA rules?

 

Chris         

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:38 PM Alecsander Eitan <eitana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Chris and all,

 

I read your email regarding “Out of scope comments from LB239”, and I would like to comment on some of the CIDs that you mentioned.

Before addressing specific CIDs I would like to mention that our TG task is to produce a good and complete standard amendment that can be implemented and provides means for efficient use of the spectrum. The standard text is evolving and it is very difficult to see in any draft all the issues especially when multiple sections are involved. This is why we review the draft over and over. Limiting the CIDS just to changed text from previous draft looks unreasonable and bureaucratic. We must look at each draft to check it is good and complete.

 

Regarding CID 4035 & 4434:

The commenters are correct “TDD Link Maintenance Statistics” is now limited to TDD Channel Access. There is no reason to keep the feature TDD specific.”

The TDD Link Maintenance Statistics, including the “Parameters Across Rx Chains”, “Parameters Across PPDUs”, “Parameters Across LDPC Codewords” and “Parameters Across SC Blocks/OFDM Symbols”, which are now available only in TDD mode are general (not specific to TDD mode) and they are the ONLY method for providing feedback for any MIMO case where NSTS>1.

Due to the above, it is essential to make the Link Maintenance Statistics be available also for non-TDD operation mode.

 

Regarding CID 4067:

I agree that the need for supporting DFS (also named DAA) for this band is new and it is originated in the new ruling in Europe. I will provide the formal references from ECC and CEPT. It is my understanding that IEEE standards goal is to be adequate for operation all over the world including Europe. In this case to comply with the European requirements there is a need to support this feature.

Can you please explain why should we not support this feature as part of the 802.11ay spec?

 

Thank you,

Alecs

 

 

 

From: *** 802.11 TGay - NG60 - Next Generation 60 GHz *** <STDS-802-11-TGAY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Christopher Hansen
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 7:14 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGAY] Out of scope comments from LB239

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Letter ballot 239 was a re-circulation ballot and therefore the scope of comments is limited to sections of the draft that changed from D2.0 to D3.0 or were unresolved from the previous letter ballot.  (See: https://standards.ieee.org/faqs/recirc.html - "Remember, during a recirculation ballot, balloters can only vote on the changed portion of the document and on any unresolved negative comments.")  However, I see a number of comments that appear to be made on unchanged text. For example, CIDs 4000, 4035, 4067, 4116, 4143, 4152, and 4434.  I believe there are many others.  

 

In order to move forward efficiently, I think the task group needs to review the comment list and reject all the out of scope comments.

 

Thanks.

 

Chris

  

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAY list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAY&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAY list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAY&A=1