Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Motion request

[Rajat PUSHKARNA <rajat.pushkarna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mengshi,

 

Thanks for initiating this. In my opinion the resolution should be ‘Reject’  because the measurement setup ID is being set because of a result of something also if we keep defining like this, we also need to add measurement Instance ID and any other IDs in future.

 

But this is my opinion, let’s see what other think about this.

 

Best Regards,

Rajat.

 

From: humengshi <humengshi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2022 9:59 pm
To: 'Solomon Trainin' <strainin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dongxiandong@xxxxxxxxxx; dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx; Rajat PUSHKARNA <rajat.pushkarna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; insun.jang@xxxxxxx; 'Chen, Cheng' <cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxx>; 'Oscar Au' <oscar.au@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Zinan Lin' <Zinan.Lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mahmoud.Kamel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx; durui (D) <ray.du@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Motion request

 

Dear TTT members and all,

 

When I presented the CR document yesterday, regarding the following CID 666, Ali and Claudio suggested that there is no need to give so many definitions in Clause 3.2 (Thanks for their suggestions). Thus I’d like to change the resolution for this CID from “REVISED” into “REJECTED”.

 

Your comments and suggestions are welcome. If there is no further discussion, I will change the resolution into “REJECTED” in the next version. Thanks.

CID 666

Page. Line	Clause Number	Comment	Proposed Change	Resolution
16.14	3.2	The term "Measurement Setup ID" needs to be defined	add definition in clause 3.2	REJECTED.   No need to define it in Clause 3.2. If this one is defined, many other terms should also be defined there. To make it brief, the resolution is rejected.

 

Best regards,

Mengshi Hu

---

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