| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi,
While I don’t have a strong opinion on one vs two Report TF variants, I wanted to understand the motivation bit better.
I was under the impression that the response to the Report TF need not be controlled by the TF itself and can be function
of behaviors defined elsewhere in the normative clauses if needed. This would allow, for example, (a) aggregation of multiple Report frames of potentially different types as response to same TF from same STA, (b) STA-1 sends Report of type 1 while STA-2 sends
report of type 2 etc. Regards, Dibakar
From: Dongguk Lim <dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx>
Hi Mengshi, Thanks for your email.
Yes, You understood what I meant.
Best regards, Dongguk.
From: humengshi [mailto:humengshi@xxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Dongguk, Thanks for your feedback. Do you mean that we
only have one Report sub-variant in this CR document, and then we can revise the approved one and discuss how to differentiate the report trigger frames later in another CR document? I’m also fine with
that, if it is more convenient for you to address those CIDs in the topic trigger frames. Best regards. Mengshi Hu
发件人:
Dongguk Lim <dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx> Hi Mengshi, Thanks for your comments and suggestions. As you know, All CIDs were cared for by this CR document are requested to define the sensing Trigger frame and its sub-variant ( i.e. Poll, Sounding, Report)
So, first off, I would like to make a decision for the Sensing Trigger frame including format and subvariant.
After the above resolutions, I will provide the resolution for CID 561. It is related to CSI threshold feedback and your suggestion.
by considering this process, I would like to discuss your suggestion after discussion of this CR document. I hope that this will be good for you. In addition, I will more think about the name of Frame A and Frame C and if I got some idea for that, I will back to you. Best Regards, Dongguk.
From: humengshi [mailto:humengshi@xxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Dongguk, Thanks for preparing this CR document. According to the draft, in the threshold-based reporting phase, Frame A and Frame C are present. I think those frames could be the sensing trigger frames with
different subvariants, according to some suggestions in the 11bf call. Thus,
could you consider dividing the report sub-variant into two report sub-variants? One is the measurement report subvariant shown in your document. The other one is the CSI variation report subvariant, and the subfields in the corresponding
User Info field are TBD this time. Actually I’m open to the name of Frame A and C, but I think two subvariants are needed to differentiate those trigger frames Frame A
and C. Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Best regards, Mengshi Hu
发件人:
Dongguk Lim <dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx> Dear TTT members,
I would like to share the CR document for the resolution of CIDs related to the
“Tigger” topic. Attached please find and take look at it.
Your comments and questions will be appreciated. Thanks,
Best regards, Dongguk.
From: Dongguk Lim [mailto:dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx]
Dear TTT members,
Thanks for your interest in the topic
“ Trigger “ After requesting CIDs related to Trigger, Two CIDs (129, 561 ) were reassigned from
“Threshold” to “Trigger”
Please check it in the DCN820r3. and since I didn't receive any request for CIDs, so, as I mentioned in the previous email, to resolve those CIDs and to discuss the sensing Trigger frame,
all CIDs were assigned to me. Therefore, I will prepare the initial document for that and if the drafting is finished, I will share it with you first. Thanks, Best regards, Dongguk.
From: Dongguk Lim [mailto:dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx]
Dear All. I am sending out this email to call for volunteers for comment resolution for Topic Trigger as described in DCN820r1. Currently, 14 comments are submitted and all comments mentioned that the Sensing trigger frame should be defined.
So, for the consistent resolution of the above CIDs, I would like to make an initial resolution document to resolve all CIDs.
If you have a different opinion and if you would like to volunteer to resolve the CID, please let me know..
Thanks a lot and should you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Best regards, Dongguk. ________________________________________________________________________________________
Dongguk Lim
Chief Technology Officer IoT Connectivity Standard Task/Professional
LG Electronics Inc
19, Yangjae-daero 11-gil, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea
M.82-10-8996-4690
E.dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx
___________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1 |