| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Stephen, Thank you very much for your feedback. I appreciate your valuable comments. Following are my responses in line.
1) I do not think the term "use case" is suitable for 11bn. It is a very generic term and I am concerned that it will be misunderstood. I think a simple extension to the existing Access Network Options field (see slide 10) is the easiest
way forward for your work. Use some of the reserved values (6-13) in Table 9-236 and I think that is all you have to do. I agree with your comments and thoughts. The term "Use Case" I intended was explained in my previous mail, but the generic term may be misunderstood,
as you mentioned. Moreover, Extending the existing Access Network Options field is the best way for my intention.
2) A better straw poll would be:
"Do you agree to extending the Access Network Options field in 11bn?" Thank you for your suggestion. I modified the SP text to follow the discussions. "Do you agree to extending the Access Network Options field in 11bn? Note: This intends to use reserved bits (6-13) in the Access Network Options to indicate the UHR use cases (TBD)." https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/24/11-24-0837-01-00bn-indication-of-use-case-in-11bn.pptx
3) The original intention of the Interworking element is to provide an indication to the non-AP STA about the type of network to which the AP is attached. It is only to be treated as best effort information and cannot be relied upon. If a
more reliable indication is required, the non-AP STA needs to associate to an AP and then determine the true characteristics of the network. Thank you for your comment. The indication of the 11bn use case that I intended initially is similar to the Interworking element. I would like to
notify network types that will be important for the UHR, such as "Latency Sensitive Network." This will be some "guidance," but not for any "trigger" to force some features because this will be best-effort information, as you mentioned. Best regards, Akira From: Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx>
Akira, I like your concept and thank you for creating the submission. I have some feedback for you: 1) I do not think the term "use case" is suitable for 11bn. It is a very generic term and I am concerned that it will be misunderstood. I think a simple extension to the existing Access Network Options field (see slide
10) is the easiest way forward for your work. Use some of the reserved values (6-13) in Table 9-236 and I think that is all you have to do. 2) A better straw poll would be: "Do you agree to extending the Access Network Options field in 11bn?" 3) The original intention of the Interworking element is to provide an indication to the non-AP STA about the type of network to which the AP is attached. It is only to be treated as best effort information and cannot
be relied upon. If a more reliable indication is required, the non-AP STA needs to associate to an AP and then determine the true characteristics of the network. Kind regards Stephen On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 03:49, Akira Kishida <0000225315dd7287-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1 |