| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Klaus, Many thanks for your feedback. Please see my answers in
inline. Best, Sanket Kalamkar From: Klaus Doppler (Nokia) <0000320c1b22a542-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hi Sanket, Thanks a lot for the very good work on this. I have two comments in the attached document.
I don’t think we need to have a “Co-TDMA sharing AP” definition and a “sharing AP”. It is much cleaner if we only use one definition. There is also a slight difference in that the Co-TDMA sharing AP shares a TXOP with a set of APs and the
sharing AP only with another AP. In the current version, the Co-TDMA polls a set of AP but only shares with another AP. [Sanket] It appears that the term “sharing AP” will be used within the context of a common framework for multi-AP coordination. To differentiate from the general usage term, the thinking was to adopt the term
“Co-TDMA sharing AP.” However, I don’t have a strong preference as long as the PDT’s intent is clear. I’ll leave this decision to the group. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. By “another AP,” I meant one of the AP(s). For now, I have updated my local copy of the PDT with the definition of “sharing AP” to replace “another AP” with “a set
of AP(s)” to ensure consistency. The modified definition of “sharing AP” would be then: Second, We had “Whether or not the Co-TDMA sharing AP is mandated to send the ICF
as part of the Co-TDMA procedure is TBD.” As part of the motion. This could be incorporated in the text with a simple
[Sanket] I prefer to keep the text as close to the motion’s wording as possible to avoid any misinterpretation/confusion regarding the parts the group has decided to mark as TBD. I hope you are OK with this approach. A Co-TDMA sharing AP announces/may announce [TBD] its intention of sharing a time portion of an obtained TXOP with another AP in an ICF …
BR, Klaus From: Sanket Kalamkar <000033b8f79f2eb4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear
Co-TDMA TTT members, I received some incredibly constructive feedback from the TTT members on Version 0 of r1 of the IEEE PDT on Co-TDMA. Your active involvement is much appreciated! After returning from the Thanksgiving break, I’ve put together Version 1 of r1 of the PDT, considering all the comments received on Version 0 of r1 up until November 29th. Attached to this e-mail, you’ll find both the redline and clean
versions. Version 1 will be the final version of r1, and I’ve already posted the clean version on the mentor (11-24/1961r1). The redline version is packed with annotations highlighting the changes and pointing to the comments (and respective commenters) that inspired them. You can also find comments from all commenters in the multiple attached Word documents.
I’ve provided point-by-point responses to each comment in the respective documents. If I’ve accidentally overlooked any of your comments, please let me know! I kindly ask you to review r1 of the PDT and share any further comments by the
end of Friday (December 6th, 11:59 PM Pacific Time). My plan is to prepare r2 of the PDT and post it on the mentor by next Tuesday, December 10th. The goal is to make r2 stable enough so that we can
discuss it during one of the IEEE teleconference calls and move forward with the SP/motion. Thanks again for your invaluable input and cooperation! Best, Sanket Kalamkar From: Sanket Kalamkar <000033b8f79f2eb4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Dear Co-TDMA TTT members, We made significant progress on Co-TDMA during the November IEEE meeting, with six motions being passed. Based on these motions and the feedback received on r0 (many thanks to Brian Hart!), I have prepared an initial draft of r1 of the
PDT. Attached to this email, you will find both the redline and clean versions of the initial draft of r1 of the PDT. This draft also includes some additional text that I believe is a straightforward extension of the passed motions.
I kindly request your comments and suggestions within the next 24 hours, by
2pm Thursday (Pacific Time). Additionally, I have attached my point-by-point responses to Brian’s comments on r0. Best, Sanket Kalamkar From: Brian Hart (brianh) <00000c7561051aea-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hi Sanket Many thanks for kicking this effort off! My comments attached. Best wishes Brian Cisco Confidential From: Sanket Kalamkar <000033b8f79f2eb4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This is the initial email for: Proposed Draft Text for C-TDMA As the PoC for C-TDMA, I have created the initial PDT document
11-24-1961r0 for C-TDMA. This document includes proposed text based on the motion passed until September 2024. We will update the PDT as additional motions are passed. The current version r0 is at a very high level, based on just one motion. The author list in r0 is based on the 1:1 TTT requests received to me after the TGbn Chair’s guideline to send TTT request to PoCs. The author list will be updated based on the list of members in the TTT for C-TDMA (about 80 members) mentioned
in the document by Ross
11-24/1698r12. If you wish to be removed from the TTT or the current (and future) author list, please e-mail me at sankal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I will update the author list accordingly in the next revised version
(r1). Please send any comments on the draft text (excluding the author list) in 11-24-1961r0 to this e-mail thread. This allows all TTT members to see and discuss your comments, facilitating debate on any changes to the document. This will be
our general process for including text in the document. At some point, as the group passes more motions to C-TDMA, we will try to find volunteers to create draft text sections corresponding to those motions. Depending on the size/complexity of that text, it should appear for discussion within
this e-mail thread either as:
We will aim to discuss any new proposed draft text within this thread and reach a super-majority agreement (e.g., 75% of the TTT membership). However, even 75% is challenging due to the fluid nature of TTT membership. Deciding when to close
the debate on new text will be a judgment call, typically when objections reduce to a small number (e.g., less than 25%, or about 15-20 people). If objections persist, we may need to conduct a straw poll in TGbn and update our document 11-24-1961rx based on
the outcome. Future text additions will follow a similar process, aiming for super-majority agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. P.S. You might have noticed that the guidelines in this e-mail are straight from Matthew Fischer's playbook. Thanks, Matt—it saved me a ton of time and probably a few gray hairs! Best, Sanket Kalamkar 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 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 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 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 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 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 |