| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Thanks Rojan, I think the motion speaks by itself and is very clear. The motion say: “is mandatory for 802.11be AP and 802.11be STA”. The motion does not say: “is mandatory for 802.11be AP and 802.11be STA affiliated with an MLD”. There is absolutely no ambiguity. If there are people claiming that there is misinterpretation, either that clarification will help or they want to revisit an achieved agreement and try and find an excuse for it. If they want to revisit an achieved agreement, they have to bring up a contribution and reach 75% support for changing the agreement.
But blocking the spec writing for an achieved agreement is not a correct behavior. Thanks, Best regards Laurent From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear all, I received offline concerns regarding few MAC features and have uploaded a revised version with two possible options. Please review this version instead. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0299-01-00be-crs-for-d0-3-eht-sta-features-cids.docx To summarize, there are differeing view points regarding the following MAC features, whether they are mandatory for all EHT STAs or only for EHT STAs affiliated with an MLD: — support for Multi-link discovery procedure — support for Multi-link (re)setup procedure
— support for Multi-link BlockAck procedure — support for link management procedure with default TID-to-link mapping — support for MLD level sequence number spaces To provide some context, I used the following motion as the basis for the above points: The support of the following MLO features is mandatory for 802.11be AP and 802.11be STA.
[Motion 142, #SP303,
[53] and
[173]] However, there seem to be different interpretations of the motion, whether it is applicable for all EHT STAs or only for EHT STAs affiliated with MLDs. While there have been attempts
in the MAC group to resolve this difference, consensus has not been reached yet. One option is to leave these features out from this CR document for the time being; alternatively we could run a SP for the two options to gauge the group’s preference.
Do let me know if you have any thoughts/opinion on this; we could use this thread to see if we can achieve some consensus on this. Best Regards, Rojan From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear all, I have uploaded the CR document for CIDs related to clause 4.3.15c (EHT STA features). Please help to review and let me know if there is anything. Thanks to all co-authors that helped to review the draft version and provided
valuable feedbacks. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0299-00-00be-crs-for-d0-3-eht-sta-features-cids.docx Best regards, Rojan Chitrakar To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 |