| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
My intention is to rely on the Working Group process/procedures. Those procedures dictate that an amendment’s scope is by definition inclusive of adapting all baseline text that is affected by the amendment. So, if there is agreement (by the Editors) that 11be will follow 11bh _in amendment ordering_, then 11be has no option to drop the topic. That said, the way this actually gets sorted out is that someone will need to file a comment that the features introduced by 11bh are not adapted by 11be’s text (and I will submit such a comment on the next 11be LB). I agree with you, the members of TGbe are likely to not want to spend time working on this, but the solution to that is to have an off-line group of interested members work on it, and bring the resolution/updates back for approval. This is normal 11be process (under the POC concept). I fully expect I will end up being volunteered to be the POC for the 11bh comments in the next 11be LB – and I would intend to pull in the 11bh experts that are willing to work on this, for off-line discussion and resolution of the LB comment(s). So, in effect, the same people will end up working on this. But, procedurally, we’ll do that as part of 11be comment resolution, and from a timeline perspective this will need to be done for 802.11be publication, and will not hold up 802.11bh’s publication. That last bit is my goal. I don’t intend to “get out of doing this work”, I’m sure I (and mostly the same set of other active TGbh members) will end up doing the work, either way. Mark From: Jay Yang <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi Mark, Thanks for your response. The problem is that are your sure 11be group will discuss the 11bh identifier in MLD? I doubt this. Personally, I believe the will drop this topic to meet their timeline if there is no formal liasion or Joint call with 11be group to force them to address it. Based on your thought, i can image the PING-PONG case will happened between the two group. Further, the IRM case in both link RMA and MLD RMA is more complicated, we need spend more time to discuss it.Therefore, I think our group is the best place. Seems the obstacle lies in the timeline of the group! Best Regards Jay Yang (杨志杰) Wi-Fi Standard Research Engineer ZTE Corporation R&D Building I, No.899 Bibo, Pudong District, Shanghai, P. R. China Original From: MarkHamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> Date: 2023年09月13日 22:12 Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] question on 11bh timeline Jay, I generally agree with your analysis. The only difference is that this amendment ordering is at the control of the Editors group. And, per my discussion at the Editors meeting on Tuesday morning, I believe we are very close to making the decision that 11bh will go ahead of 11be (in both time, and in dependency ordering), and if/when that decision is finalized the table will be changed. (That is, the table you are referencing is a graphical representation of the results of the Editors’ decision about amendment ordering, the table is not the authority.) So, no, the process is not liaisons between the groups, or even the chairs talking, it is the Editors group making the amendment ordering decision – and that is exactly the discussion I started yesterday, FYI. As for why I’m pushing for this, I’ll remind that the intention of 11bh is to address the problems caused by RCM, as quickly as possible. This has already taken much longer than I had hoped/anticipated (and I’ll take responsibility for that, as Chair), but I don’t want to introduce yet more months of delay for artificial reasons. As for concern about implementations picking this up, I’ll note that if we get ahead of 11be, then 11be will explicitly discuss how to do 11bh identification in an MLO/MLD scenario, and that is actually a much more likely way to get implementations to support it, if it is explicit in 11be itself. In my opinion. Mark From: yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi Mark,all, When I read the timeline via the link : IEEE 802.11, The Working Group Setting the Standards for Wireless LANs, I found 802.11be draft is the baseline of 11bh draft if I understand correctly on the following table. If so, 11bh group should address the identification issue on MLD as well,because MLD also support 11aq with both MLD RMA and link RMA(see 12.2.10 Requirements for support of MAC privacy enhancements in 11be draft 4.0).
The only concern from Editor meeting is that 11bh draft will be ahead of 11be draft for 3 months. In order to address their concern, could we move our timeline a little behind of 11be? Because there is only 3 months gap between the two groups. You know, some vendor predicted that all the new devices will support MLO in 2 years. if 11bh group just address the issue on legacy device regardless MLD, I'm afraid our group spend 3.5 years to define 11bh draft but still lag behind the market requirement, which makes our job become meanless in this group. Although some member proposed to address identification issue on MLD in 11be group during the call, but 11bh is NOT the baseline of 11be according to following table. If we really wanna make it, I wonder do we need a formal liaision to 11be group or set up a Joint meeting with 11be group? Anyway, looking forwards to your feedback after you talk with 11be Chair.
Best Regards Jay Yang (杨志杰) Wi-Fi Standard Research Engineer ZTE Corporation R&D Building I, No.899 Bibo, Pudong District, Shanghai, P. R. China 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||