Thanks, Graham.
No objections to also considering your approach, but …
I know the number of votes cast varied, which is why I used
percentages and not absolute numbers. I think that removes the
difference (in my opinion).
The problem I have with the “assign points” method, is that, for
example, something that gets a bunch of High votes gets a very high
score, so a lone/few Low votes has very little relative effect. But,
something that gets a lot of Low votes is dramatically changed by a
lone/few High votes.
However, I’ll note that it is interesting how tight a grouping you got
for those “top 5” (compared to the other 4) with your method.
Interesting…
Mark
*From:* G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 2, 2022 3:21 PM
*To:* mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] 802.11 TGbh agenda for Mar 3 - NOTE
TIME! Analysis of results.
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:
Scheme
Name
Hi
Med
3 Hi 2 Med
2 Hi, 1 Med
Ranking
1
Signature Based
2
7
20
11
7
2
IRMA
4
8
28
16
6
3
Client ID
6
8
34
20
4
4
Transient STA ID
3
4
17
10
8
5
Secure Device ID
1
2
7
4
9
6
Opaque device ID
8
5
34
21
3
7
STA Generated Device ID
7
7
35
21
2
8
MAAD
8
6
36
22
1
9
Network Generated device ID
9
3
33
21
4
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
<mailto:mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 2, 2022 4:36 PM
*To:* STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [STDS-802-11-TGBH] 802.11 TGbh agenda for Mar 3 - NOTE TIME!
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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mentor.ieee.org_802.11_dcn_22_11-2D22-2D0406-2D00-2D00bh-2Dagenda-2Dtgbh-2D2022-2Dmarch-2D3.pptx&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Z3s2jA8rgZoSco8f4kvDx_nOirz2RA_bah_KFKOseb8&m=TDMUSTPDUjIUZnFQjm2MbsS-dSK8uSFCJH5LPE6XeDQ&s=iK3JDWcv_dK0uFFU0J9SJfkiFwnOMcV962uc_qfcs7I&e=>
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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mentor.ieee.org_802.11_dcn_22_11-2D22-2D0405-2D01-2D00bh-2Dsolutions-2Dstraw-2Dpolls-2Danalysis.pptx&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Z3s2jA8rgZoSco8f4kvDx_nOirz2RA_bah_KFKOseb8&m=TDMUSTPDUjIUZnFQjm2MbsS-dSK8uSFCJH5LPE6XeDQ&s=-mUZhXQC33F5p0jnvpRPV-p1hCGoIceHLt49QB8rANY&e=>.
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
<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