| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Dibakar and Sanket, I expressed similar comments before, Sanket’s suggestion looks fine for me. I don’t think it is good to introduce too much number/thresholds. Simply mandate myBSS transmission before
share to OBSS AP is good enough. Regards, Yunbo 发件人: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi Sanket, I will ask for the chair guidance here regarding whether we need to clarify every detail in a section before the corresponding PDT being motioned.
I think I am currently following same approach as others to make incremental progress on topics to meet timeline. This PDT document is capturing the group consensus on the motion text. There was a TBD in the motion because
this part was not resolved. So, the PDT also has a TBD for that aspect. Regards, Dibakar From: Sanket Kalamkar <sankal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Dibakar, Do you see a technical concern with the suggested text in my earlier e-mail? Best, Sanket From: Das, Dibakar WARNING: This
email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hi Sanket, I think we need to make some progress to meet the 11bn draft 1.0 timeline. As such given this text is capturing the motion that passed, we should try to follow what we have done for every other PDT: make progress on the parts that are
agreed and work on resolving the details. If the issue is really about not having a “TBD” we can follow what we have typically done for such issues: have a place-holder/imprecise text for now until the group finds the precise solution. Regards, Dibakar From: Sanket Kalamkar <sankal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Dibakar, Thank you again for preparing the PDT on the fairness topic. I have a couple of technical concerns as follows: The current PDT (11-25/479r3)
states: "Within a TXOP in which a TXOP owner AP performs either Co-TDMA or TXS mode 2 procedure, the AP shall use at least a
TBD portion of the obtained TXOP for
data communication with its own associated STAs before sharing the TXOP with other STAs."
1.
From a spec language point-of-view, the term "data communication" is ambiguous. So, I suggest the following revision:
2.
Suggest not to introduce a new TBD. The above suggestion takes care of it as well. We can always add to the PDT if there is a need to add a specific value later. If you think we need more offline discussions, we can defer the motion to give us more time to revise the PDT. Best, Sanket From: Das, Dibakar WARNING: This
email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hi Alfred, Please add the following (presented) CR doc to agenda for MAC queue for SP: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/25/11-25-0479-01-00bn-cr-for-cid-1378.docx Regards, Dibakar 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 |