| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
The problem with the method(s) for the analysis in 22/0405 is that the total numbers cast varies. Also, using the Low priority as a metric, strikes me as negative.
I would suggest a much simpler and clearer, positive, method is:
3 points for Hi , and 2 Points for Med Or 2 points for Hi, and 1 point for Med Then we get following:
I would suggest from this that we could legitimately down select to effectively 4 solutions (similar to Mark’s result but I would suggest clearer to justify): MAAD, Opaque/Network Gen ID (NOTE: I think they can be considered the same, or if not they should be) STA Generated ID Client ID 2 are STA generated IDs, and 2 are AP generated IDs. Just my observation, Graham From: Mark Hamilton [mailto:mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx]
All A reminder that there is an 802.11 TGbh teleconference scheduled for Thursday, Mar 3,
at 17:00 ET. I have posted a proposed agenda, here:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0406-00-00bh-agenda-tgbh-2022-march-3.pptx
Note that I have also posted an attempt at some analysis of our straw poll results from the Feb 22 teleconference, here:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0405-01-00bh-solutions-straw-polls-analysis.pptx. I am open to other thoughts on how we can analyze these results, or choose a way forward. Thanks. Mark To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 |