| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Graham, Thanks for your feedback. Yes, 7,21,114 concern the probability of selecting same IRM (by more than one STA). My thinking is a bit different. I guess a “feedback” might help here, such as: - Currently, “IRM Status” field is defined for ACK/NACK (IRM recognized/not recognized). Maybe, we can define another field for DUPLICATE. By doing so, STA would know that it chose a
duplicated IRM so that STA would generate a new IRM and try again, expecting that the new IRM is unique (not a perfect solution but at least a mechanism). - The same DUPLICATE can be realized with a reason code in deauthentication/dissassociaton frame. These are just my initial thoughts. We can continue to discuss further. BR, Okan From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Okan, Mark, I see you want to address 7,21,114 which concern the probability of selecting same IRM, i.e., how random is PRN?
I am happy for your input on this. It has been put to me that the ‘problem’ seems to be the selection of the same random seed by STAs. Maybe a note needs to be added on making the
selection as random as possible, but I am more than happy for you to weigh in on this. I think 81 is quite straightforward and I proposed an Accept. Graham From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, Okan. Yes, where the CID is already assigned to someone, would you please work with the current Assignee (and if you mutually agree to change the Assignee to you, just let me know). Otherwise, thanks for volunteering to take these! Thanks. Mark From: Okan Mutgan (NSB) <okan.mutgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mark, Graham, Jay, and all, I also plan to take these CIDs: 7, 18, 21, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 99, 111, 112, 113, 114. Thanks! BR, Okan From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
OK, as I volunteered on them I did not realize there were notes there already.
From:
mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Graham/all, I have incorporated your resolution comments/notes into the r4 of the comment tracking sheet (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-1152-04-00bh-ieee-802-11bh-lb274-comments.xlsx). However, I note that this is a little complicated, in that some of those CIDs had Notes already (mostly “Submission Required”, etc., but might be more), so I had to do a ‘merge’, and as a result it is a little unclear
which notes are yours, Graham, and which were mine/pre-existing. I also note that you commented on a few CIDs that are not assigned to you (Graham). And, one CID (214) didn’t have a comment from you. So, we can _mostly_ go through these by filtering for ones assigned to you,
but not 100%. Bottom line, this is fine, for now, and we (I) can manage and sort things out. But, going forward it is probably better if anyone working on comments does actually post a document themselves, with a unique DCN, (a subset
copy of the comment tracking spreadsheet is fine, or another format, as appropriate), so that we can consider that document as a clearly distinct list of suggested response/proposed resolution from the given author. Thanks! Mark From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mark, Please find attached copy of the CID excel. I have written text in the Notes column for all the CIDs allocated to me. May I suggest you copy them into your official spreadsheet then they can be discussed. If you prefer that I do a more official submission, let me know, but I think that this should work. If any note is unclear please let me know. Obviously the question about whether to keep the Status fields is outstanding.
Thanks Graham From: G Smith
Hi Mark, Jay, I happily want Jay to address 40, 89, 137, 178, and 224. Thanks Jay. I think 164 is a simple “accept”, but maybe Jay knows more? Thanks Graham From:
mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, Graham! Note that I already have CIDs 40, 89, 137, 164, 178, and 224 assigned to Jay. Can you guys coordinate on any proposed resolution, please? Thanks. Mark From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mark, I would be willing to look at following CIDs 2,3,4,5,7,21,22,23,25,37,40,49,51,81,89,114,128,135,137,140,148,149,164,168,169,178,193,196,197,198,207,208,224,240,214. I will do my best to do these in a timely manner. Many require decision on the Status field. Graham From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
All, I have uploaded a slight update to the TGbh comment tracking spreadsheet, here:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-1152-02-00bh-ieee-802-11bh-lb274-comments.xlsx
This update:
Talk to you all, tomorrow morning! Please be considering volunteering as Assignee for some CIDs. 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 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
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 |