Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

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

Hello, Dongguk

I removed the “sub-variant” according to Ali’s feedback already and prepared the Rev 1 version, which will be discussed during the call.

We can discuss if we may keep four variants or 5 variants during the call, as well.

Regards

Junghoon

From: Dongguk.lim [mailto:dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx]
Sent: June 23, 2023 3:29 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

Hi Junghoon,

Thanks for sharing your resolution document.

Regarding the resolution for # 1767, I have one comment.

As you know, we defined the sensing NDPA frame for sensing measurement.

I think that the defined sensing NDPA frame is also one of the NDPA frame variants as equal to others, i.e., VHT/HE/EHT/Ranging. Is my understanding correct?

In addition, even though we defined the new sensing NDPA frame, we can’t use the NDP Announcement Variant subfield because all values are already used for indication of other NDPA frame variants.

Thus, we decided to the use same indication with ranging NDPA and to distinguish the ranging and sensing, we defined the additional bit signaling in a special user field in this frame.

In conclusion, sensing NDPA is not a sub-variant of ranging NDPA, so I think the commenter's suggestion is wrong.

So, I don't think it's necessary to change five to four in the resolution below.

Best regards,

Dongguk.

From: Ali Raissinia [mailto:alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2023 4:21 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

Sounds perfect to me unless Claudio has a different input.

From: Junghoon Suh <000017d35818e7c0-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 12:11 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.

Hi, Ali

I thought “(i.e. AP)” looked a little unprofessional, and the similar sentence repeats in the Clause 11, so I Rejected earlier.

However, how about changing it to “Revised” as following below?

In a non-TB sensing measurement instance (see 11.55.1.5.3 (Non-TB sensing measurement instance)), there is always only one intended recipient STA and the RA field is set to the address of that STA, which is the AP.

Let me know how you think.

Regards

Junghoon

From: Ali Raissinia [mailto:alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: June 22, 2023 2:49 PM
To: Junghoon Suh <Junghoon.Suh@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

Hi Junghoon, I am thinking the resolution would also need to be accept since the RA address is indeed AP’s MAC address for NTB, no?

From: Junghoon Suh <000017d35818e7c0-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 11:40 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.

Hello, Ali

Thank you for reviewing my CR in advance.

Yes, the CID 1686 has an typo in the Reject reason, and let me update the “TB” to “Non-TB”.

As for the 1767, I am fine with your suggestion, and let me prepare the Rev 1 based on your feedback. Let us wait and see during the presentation in the TGbf call if there will be any further comments before I upload the Rev 1 to the server.

Thank you

Regards

Junghoon

From: Ali Raissinia [mailto:alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: June 22, 2023 12:14 PM
To: Junghoon Suh <Junghoon.Suh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

Hi Junghoon, thanks for resolving these CIDs. Regarding CID 1686, the text is associated with NTB hence the suggested minor edit, see below

1686

72.25

(31.25)

9.3.1.19.5

Change the text "and the RA field is set to the address of that STA" to

and the RA field is set to the address of that STA (i.e., AP)

Rejected

The recipient of the NDPA is not always the AP for a TB Measurement.

Also regarding this CID

1767

70.22

(29.21)

9.3.1.19.1

Claiming that there are five (5) variants of the NDP Announcement frame, while the table has two (2) bits is overly complicated. Why not make the Sensing NDP Announcement frame a variant of the Ranging NDP Announcement frame (which is is anyways).

Remove statements here; and define the "Sensing NDP Announcement frame" as a variant of the Ranging NDP Announcement frame later on.

Revised

Basically agreed with the comment, and the revised texts are given below.

Instruction to editor: Please incorporate the changes in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-1035-00-00bf-cr-for-lb272-ndpa-instance-ttt-part2.docx

I am fine if we want to change it to ‘four’ variant but since we don’t have the concept of sub-variant I took the initiative to make minor edits-see below (feel free to accept or reject as you see fit)

TGbf editor: please modify the senstence between P29L20 and P29L25 in D1.1 as follows

The ~~five~~ four formats are distinguished by the setting of the NDP Announcement Variant subfield in the Sounding Dialog Token field as seen in Table 9-42a (NDP Announcement frame variant encoding) where the variant for the Sensing NDP Announcement frame and Ranging NDP Announcement frame (i.e. B1B0=01) can further be distinguished by the presence or absence of the STA Info field with AID11 subfield equal to 2045 and with B31 set to 1 (see ~~Table 9-42a (NDP Announcement frame variant encoding) and~~ Table 9-42b (Ranging NDP Announcement frame and Sensing NDP Announcement frame encoding)). (#1767)

From: Junghoon Suh <000017d35818e7c0-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 11:07 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.

Hello, Tony

Could you please put the following CR to the Agenda list?

23/1035r0 CR for LB272 NDPA Instance TTT Part 2 (Junghoon Suh, Huawei)

I prefer to present this CR documentation in the TGbf conference call on 29 June 2023.

Thank you

Regards

Junghoon

From: Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) [mailto:0000177ab8f731c4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: June 19, 2023 8:56 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] TGbf meeting on June 20, 26, 27, 29

Dear all,

This is a reminder and call for submissions for the upcoming meeting on:

― June 20 (Tuesday), 10：00 - 12:00 ET

― June 26 (Monday), 10：00 - 12:00 ET

― June 27 (Tuesday), 10：00 - 12:00 ET

― June 29 (Thursday), 23：00 - 01:00 ET

Please note:

1. Please send the agenda request at least 24 hours prior to the call, following the format below:

• DCN, Title, Author (affiliation), Time duration

2. ~~I will cancel the call if there is no request received 24 hours prior to a call.~~

3. Please upload your submissions (revision 0) on mentor 24 hours prior to the meeting so that members would have a chance to review those submissions offline. Otherwise,

a. If there is not enough time during the meeting, the presentation will be delayed to the next meeting.

b. If there is enough time during the meeting, the presentation will be moved to the end of the queue and be presented in the end. However, any related SP should be delayed to the next meeting.

4. Please send the motion request (with related DCN, and SP result) around 10+5 days before the meeting (for teleconference, not for Plenary or Interim meeting), so that the TG chair could send the 10 day advance notice to the 802.11 reflector, after getting the approval from the WG chair.

Best Regards : )

Tony Xiao Han

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