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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] an alternative solution for the unresolved CIDs in CC34

Hi Edward,

 

Thanks for the clarification on the statistical data in the spreadsheet.

 

 

Thanks

 

Best Regards

 

Jay Yang

 

From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2021年7月13日 19:15
To: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] an alternative solution for the unresolved CIDs in CC34

 

Hi Jay,

 

For your information.  The spreadsheet of CC34 was not updated since the end of the May interim because of the following Chair guideline:

4.      CRs for leftover CIDs will be incorporated to post TGbe D1.0 drafts, following the usual process, and they will be identified with the corresponding CID tag in the draft  (whenever possible). CIDs in CC34 and CC36 are uniquely identified so there is no risk of overlap.

·         For all queued CR34 documents, the proposed changes need to be updated w.r.t. TGbe D1.0 (note that for many subclauses, the reference text probably has not changed).

·         Note that the TGbe editor will not be required to update the CC34 spreadsheet.

 

While I understand you can see that almost half of the comments in CC34 were unsolved, it was the status as of the end of that interim and the task group is making progress.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 3:48 AM Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Alfred,

 

Thanks for sharing the guideline about CC34 and CC36, I don’t warry about the submissions for CC34 that are presented several times but not got majority support from group, it’s natural to discuss them in CC36 if there is any relevant CIDs.

I’m thinking about the comments in CC34 without any resolution, because I see half of them are not addressed , hope POC or some volunteer help to identify them with the labels such as  “addressed in CC36”, “already addressed in another PDT(as Ming did in the 467r1)”,”no corresponding resolution”, etc. which will facilitate the group to understand the true statistic data for CC34.  

 

Thanks

 

Best Regards

 

Jay Yang

 

From: Alfred Asterjadhi <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2021年7月13日 4:23
To: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: an alternative solution for the unresolved CIDs in CC34

 

Hello Jay,


After this weeks' plenary we will not be resolving CIDs from CC34. 

Please refer to the guideline below in terms of the transition between CC34 to CC36, wherein the transition for CRs of CC34 to CC36 will occur during this weeks' plenary for PHY and after this weeks' plenary for MAC:

1.   Guidelines for WG CC CRs post TGbe D1.0

1.      D1.0 is available in the members area, which includes resolutions for many of the CC34 comments, but not all received comments.

·         CR docs resolving many of these leftover CIDs are placed in the current queues and are pending discussion and are not expected to be removed from the queue.

2.      A 30-day WG CC started on IEEE802.11be D1.0 which ends on 24th June 2021, during which comments on TGbe D1.0 are expected to be submitted by WG members.

·         If a commenter identifies a CC34 comment that has not been addressed, they are encouraged to resubmit the comment in CC36 with clause/page/number references updated relative to D1.0

·         These comments will be available to the task group shortly after the WG CC ends.

3.      Until CC36 comments are available, TGbe will discuss proposed draft texts (PDTs) and technical submissions and comment resolutions (CRs) for leftover CIDs from CC34. We will use existing guidelines for this.

·         PDTs focused exclusively on bug fixes to the D1.0 or inclusion of draft text for motions for R1 that are not currently in the draft.

4.      CRs for leftover CIDs will be incorporated to post TGbe D1.0 drafts, following the usual process, and they will be identified with the corresponding CID tag in the draft  (whenever possible). CIDs in CC34 and CC36 are uniquely identified so there is no risk of overlap.

·         For all queued CR34 documents, the proposed changes need to be updated w.r.t. TGbe D1.0 (note that for many subclauses, the reference text probably has not changed).

·         Note that the TGbe editor will not be required to update the CC34 spreadsheet.

5.      After CC36 comments are available:

·         Only CR submissions that solve CC36 comments will be considered for addition to the queues.

·         New submissions that solve CC34 comments will not be considered for addition to the queues.

 

Best Regards,

Alfred

 

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 11:17 PM Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Alfred,

 

As the resolution for CC36 starts soon, known from the statistic data in the datasheet of CC34, there are still 1092 CIDs of 2438 unresolved.

I kindly suggest to consider an alternative solution that reassign some of them to other volunteers to reduce the burn of single POC as the POC will focus their attention on CC36,

which is more friendly to the group instead of reject them directly. Hope you can take into account.

 

 

Thanks

 

Best Regards

 

Jay Yang

 


 

--

Alfred Asterjadhi, PhD

IEEE802.11 TGbe Chair,

Qualcomm Technologies Inc.

Cell #:    +1 858 263 9445

Office #: +1 858 658 5302

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