| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Mark, Thanks for the comments, see my response inline in red font. Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, Jay, I’ll get it added to the agenda. In terms of the changes to the use case, I think it might be helpful to the group to understand the requirements that result from the other group/standard, with a little more detail. (Note that I think it was mentioned that the “other group” is the WFA, and WFA Specifications are generally in the public domain and can be discussed/reviewed in IEEE ? I/you would need to double-check
for any specific document, but it is probably okay to reference.) à<Jay> According to my understanding, WFA specification is not the public materials, it may cause some confidential
concern if we talk WFA specification directly in IEEE group. Anyway, I can provide some reference so that 11bh number can check it by your own channel. The recommended solution on use case 4.1 can refer to VBSS proposal in Easy mesh R5 specification.
The last part is news to me, if I understood: “we already have the solutions standardized by other group.” So, are you saying that not only is the RCM problem an issue for the WFA spec,
but the WFA have a solution already standardized as well? If that’s the case, then we are getting in a “grey area” in terms of how much the IEEE should try to capture any of that (a third party protocol has a problem, and has already found a solution) ? but we can discuss at the task group.
More information would be helpful, again, to those members who don’t know any details here (myself included). à<Jay> Let me clarify. The previous conclusion on use case 4.1 is “
“Nice to have” though, if can find sufficient privacy controls (opt-in, etc.) ? maybe recommendation? Maybe if a solution to
another problem happens to solve this?” , 11bh group can recommend a general solution like VBSS to address such concern, which is already mentioned in use case 4.26 of issue tracking document(R30) and in easy mesh R5 as well. But 11bh group need provide a
solution to address the identification issue on probe request frame with RCM if we provide that recommendation.
On the second case, the previous conclusion on use case 4.8 is “It should also be noted that passive scanning is becoming more common, so reliance on identifiable probes
for client steering has other problems, already.” Actually, we can use Beacon request/report frame exchange to trigger a STA perform active scan and send probe request frame for STA steering purpose to address such concern, which is already standardized
in Easy mesh(multiple AP specification) R2 and widely used in current multiple APs product. The Beacon request/report frame itself are defined by 802.11 specification many years ago. And thus, the previous conclusion is not correct. Therefore, 11bh group
need to reconsider the RCM issue on the probe in post association. In conclusion, as I offline talk with some members, I don’t have any reference on the proposals, but I hope the proposal adopted by 11bh group can address the RCM issue
in those use cases that is already appeared in current market/product. Mark From: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mark, Issue tracking document is updated to R35, please help add it to the agenda. Hi All, We propose to change use case 4.1 and 4.8 to “in scope” in R35 as we already have the solutions standardized by other group. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any concern on this.
Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From:
mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, Jay. Added, in updated agenda:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0568-01-00bh-agenda-tgbh-2022-april-7.pptx
Since members have little time to review this updated proposal, I suggest we tackle our planned motion preparation activity first, and then consider your updated proposal in the time remaining. Mark From: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mark, Issue tracking document is updated to R34, please help add it to the agenda. Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Dorothy/all, I request permission for the following motions, to be run during the TGbh telecon on April 12 (9:00am ET). Note that:
Proposed motions: Move to incorporate the text changes into the P802.11bh draft as indicated in the following document:
Move to incorporate the text changes into the P802.11bh draft as indicated in the following document:
Move to incorporate the text changes into the P802.11bh draft as indicated in the following document:
Move to incorporate the text changes into the P802.11bh draft as indicated in the following document:
Move to incorporate the text changes into the P802.11bh draft as indicated in the following document:
Thank you. 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 |