| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello all May I know your opinion about the resolution about CID 11715 in 26/0022r5? I list three options for the discussion. Option 1: add DUO Operation Parameters field in the UHR Operation Parameters field as in 26/0022r5, but put DUO Operation Parameters field as the first field in the UHR Operation Parameters field
as Minyoung suggested. And add the clarification that the field is present when the AP supports DUO. It’s easy to parse. [Ming] works for me Option 2: Put the DUO parameter (only 5 bits actually) in the UHR Operation Control field like we did for DBE BW. [Ming] not quite well, since UHR parameters Update element also needs an independent DSO parameters field Option 3: Make it completely self-contained. Have an UHR Enable field to have all the enable/disable bits and DBE BW fields, and a UHR Operation Control field that have a presence bit for each
features (DPS, NPCA, P-EDCA, DBE, DUO). [Ming] I could live with it if the group member like it Best wishes Ming Gan 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 |