Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT MAC CR-TWT

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hi Giovanni

Many thanks for kicking this effort off! My comments attached.

Best wishes

Brian

Cisco Confidential

From: Giovanni Chisci <00002b657bbbbed7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 9:11 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT MAC CR-TWT

Dear CR-TWT TTT members,

I hope to find you well.

Proposed Draft Text for CR-TWT

As POC,I have created an initial PDT document which is 11-24-1966:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/24/11-24-1966-00-00bn-pdt-mac-crtwt.docx

The CR-TWT feature currently (at the end of 2024 November IEEE 802 Plenary Session) has two passing motions.

The initial PDT-MAC-CRTWT document r0 includes proposed text based on this two motions.

As additional motions are passed, we will add to the text in the document.

I have taken the author list from the TTT list found in the document

11-24-1698-13-00bn-tgbn-d0-1-spec-text-volunteers-and-status

If you have volunteered for the CR-TWT TTT, please check the author list of 24/1996r0.

If your name is spelled incorrectly, or is missing an affiliation, or has an incorrect affiliation, or if your name is missing entirely, or if you are in the list and do not wish to be included in the author list, then please send an individual email to:

gchisci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

to indicate which particular problem exists so that I can update the document.

Feel free to send any comments on the existing PDT (i.e. the draft text, not the author list) in 24/1996r0 as a response to this email, so that all TTT members may see your comment and so that we can discuss the comment and then debate any changes to the document. This will be the general process going forward for text that is included in the document. I hope that there is little discussion on the initial text, since it is so high level and there are only a few sentences. If there is a firestorm over these first few sentences, then I will be anxiously awaiting the next passing motion...

At some point, the group should pass a few more motions relating to CR-TWT, and when this happens, then we will try to find volunteers to create draft text sections corresponding to those new motions. Depending on the size/complexity of that text, it should appear for discussion within this email thread either as:

a) text that is directly included as native text within an email sent to this thread (usually for small text additions/changes)

b) text included within a new WORD document that does not need to be an official 802.11 submission or uploaded to the server, since the text on its own will not be subject to a motion, but will only be subject to motion as part of a complete CR-TWT PDT document (i.e. 24/1996rx) - such a document would be sent as an attachment to this email thread for discussion

c) text included within a copy of the 24/1996rx WORD document, showing additions and changes to the existing 24/1996rx doc that again, should not be uploaded to the server, but attached to the email thread.

We will try, with any new proposed draft text, to discuss new proposed text within this thread and come to a super-majority regarding such new text (e.g. 75% of the TTT membership, whatever that is). I do not want to use the word consensus, because that implies near unanimous agreement and I feel that such a goal is impractical. But suggesting something like 75% is also problematic, as there is no real defined TTT membership - it is fluid. So there will be a judgement call as to when we should close the debate on any new text; Such a decision will occur when the number of objections quiets down to some small number of members (e.g. <25%, which is currently estimated to be about 15 people - but that too will be a judgement call because someone could invite a dozen of their friends to send an objection to the thread even though they are not listed as TTT members and there probably is nothing that can be done about that). In cases where such quieting does not occur, then we will have to throw the text into TGbn for a straw poll and update our document 1762rx based on that outcome.

I hope it will be generally obvious when we can accept text vs when we need to perform an SP in the TG, and I hope that we do not need to frequently submit SPs in the TG or we will never complete a D0.1....

P.S.: Many thanks to Matthew Fischer for the initial email that kicked off the discussion for the PDT of the NPCA feature, which has been taken as example to define the process in this thread.

Thank you and best regards,

Giovanni Chisci (QC)

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