| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Like you’ve said the capability exchange can be done during association phase prior to ‘FTM negotiation’ however, if I understand it correctly the model is for device that’s even unassociated (unless for 60GHz is different) to perform and
be aware of ranging capabilities so at minimum it would need to be described in IFTMR/IFTM negotiation text. My thinking is if we need to include it in the ‘negotiation text’ then the same text would have to be replicated in the ‘capability exchange’ (the
section we’re discussing). If everyone is okay with that approach then we would need to do that for TB and non-TB ranging in addition to eDMG/DMG operation, but do we? Thanks Ali From: Assaf Kasher <akasher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Ali, I don’t see the reason for capability negotiations to occur at the IFTM/IFTMR exchange. The IFTMR is setting up a burst, which may be based on short term requirements. Capabilities
are long term, and don’t change from burst to burst. It is more stable to exchange them during association and similar processes. The IFTM/IFTMR exchange shall be based on capabilities, rather than exchange them. BR, Assaf From: *** 802.11 TGaz - NGP - Next Generation Positioning *** <STDS-802-11-TGAZ@xxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Ali Raissinia CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. Ganesh, If I understand you correctly a capability like the one
below (one of the sub-bullets) is also sent in frames other than IFTMR/IFTM? Do we know why? I would think any ‘ranging specific’ capabilities would need to only be shared during the ‘ranging negotiation’
phase. I can understand Extended Capability fields being in Beacon/Probe response in order to inform devices within a BSS as to what AP is or is not capable of. I might be wrong on this, or others might have a different view, as I continue to believe detailed
capabilities belong to IFTMR/IFTM negotiation section. Angle of Arrival estimation using the TRN field included in the received
Fine Timing Measurement frame
shall set the AoA RX Capability subfield in the DMG Direction Measurement Capabilities field in the DMG Capabilities element to 1. Otherwise it shall set the AoA RX Capability subfield
to 0 Regards, Ali From: Venkatesan, Ganesh <ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. Hello Ali: I started working on the question you raised in the teleconference today when 11-19-1368 was presented: “Why are the ‘lower-level’ details described in Clause 11.22.6.2 for PDMG and PEDMG while the same is not done for non-TB and TB?”.
My response at that time appears to be short-sighted. Thinking through I realize that for PDMG/PEDMG and ‘legacy’ FTM we describe in Cl. 11.22.6.2 all the information that is carried in Extended Capabilities element, DMG Capabilities element and EDMG Capabilities element (not what is sent
in IFTMR/IFTM). I now realize that this information is not ‘low-level’ detail but is information carried in frames like the Beacon. And hence ‘outside the IFTMR/IFTM messages’. And they belong in Cl. 11.22.6.2. I think what is missing in 11-19-1368 is all the information that is set in the Extended Capabilities element that applies to non-TB and TB ranging. So my update to 11-19-1368 should focus on either adding similar content for non-TB and
TB (includes Passive) (or moving existing content from other Cl. 11 subclause(s)) that is carried in the Extended Capabilities element. Would you agree with this approach? Cheers -- ganesh “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.” – Harry Truman To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAZ list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAZ&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAZ list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAZ&A=1 |