Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi, Joseph, I only did a quick skim through of the Annex P, so there might be other details I had missed. Also, one might ask what is an “RMS accuracy” – i.e., that we might need to be clearer on what is meant by it. Hence, I would greatly appreciate it if you could bring it back in the next round. Thanks. Youhan From: Joseph Levy <Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hi Youhan – Thank you for the quick review and response. I agree we shouldn’t rush into a resolution to defining this requirement (which currently is only implied in the standard) and it was not my intent is not to make the requirement more stringent.
Given, your comment that the requirement is on the RSM accuracy of the time of departure and not each time of departure value. Does it make more sense to state the requirement as:
The
RMS accuracy of the time of departure provided in TIME_OF_DEPARTURE shall be less than or equal to +/- 80 ns.
If you or anyone else, feels this is too last minute or not correct, I guess I’ll simply withdraw the comments and bring it back at the next appropriate
time. But, I think it would be best to have a requirement in the standard for the accuracy of the time of departure, especially given the development of FTM and the ongoing related work. Thanks again for input. Regards,
Joseph From: Youhan Kim <00002b3ff331b292-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi, Joseph, Thank you for the proposed resolution. The test procedure outlined in Annex P applies the 80 nsec threshold on the RMS value of the relevant time measures. However, the proposed resolution simply states that the accuracy shall be … 80 nsec, which seems to be more stringent than the test procedure of Annex P. Hence, I would suggest that we do not rush into adopting the text changes from 11-24/943 at this point. Thanks. Youhan From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi Joseph, The plan for the PM2 meeting is to run motions on the remaining SA Ballot CIDs. After we get through those motions and if we have time, I will allocate time on the agenda to review your contribution. Otherwise, you can file a comment on
D6.0 during the next SA Ballot recirculation. Cheers, Mike On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 6:54 AM Joseph Levy <000019588066c6b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 |