Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Mike,
The idea that xx-yy should be assigned in a manner similar to SSIDs makes sense. The first sentence in the note sort of says that: "...are expected to be set...". But I'm still stuck on the UL case, where you indicate that "There are multiple ways beyond
the scope of the standard to assign xx-yy-zz so that they are unique to the deployment." Can you provide an example? For UL traffic, those values are assigned by EPCS non-AP STAs and I don't see how
independent STAs coordinate to ensure uniqueness. Given the need to support unassociated STAs, I don't see any means for a network operator to manage the situation either.
Thanks,
John
From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:34 AM To: Wullert, John R II (PERATON LABS) <jwullert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBC] CID 4032 - Discussion Hi John,
Thanks for your comment. In my view, the assignment of xx-yy needs to be decided depending on the deployment and needs to be managed. This is no different than the assignment of SSID.
The assignment really depends on the EBCS content and the characteristics of the deployment.
The standard can recommend that the assignment be unique. There are multiple ways beyond the scope of the standard to assign xx-yy-zz so that they are unique to the deployment.
Does that make sense?
Cheers,
Mike
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:03 AM Wullert, John R II (PERATON LABS) <jwullert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBC&A=1 |