Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Mark, All, After the down-select procedure, Sid provided 4 extra requirements for pre-association identification scheme in the last call. Suppose some of “Apple funs” keep this position as well. If we insist to working on RRCM solution, I believe
“Apple funs” will strong against the down-select results. And the expected motion will be failure definitely. May I request to go with e-RRCM solution which may meet the 4 extra requirements listed by Sid? I would like to hear the group’s opinion.
Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> All, I took an action item to start this discussion on the reflector… On today’s call, we completed our down-selection process and settled on RRCM as the favored solution to work on, to try to get any additional solution into the Draft (or agree that we are not adding anything else). However, in discussion
following the down-selection process, it seems that some of the objection that might exist and prevent RRCM from passing such a motion, *might* be resolved by aspects of what’s in e-RRCM. So, we are left in a quandary ? do we modify RRCM to include
some/all e-RRCM extensions to satisfy the concerns, or is that reversing our straw poll guidance that RRCM is preferred over e-RRCM, and therefore we’ll lose some RRCM supporting voters if we do so? So, I’d like to start this thread to see if there is a sense in the group:
Thanks for any insights. 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 |