Youhan –
I believe it is clear with what is meant by “The RMS accuracy of the time of departure …” as we supply how it is tested and what the test input parameters are. However, just providing the test and its inputs does not provide a specification
requirement.
Joseph
From: Youhan Kim <youhank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 8:35 AM
To: Joseph Levy <Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGM] 11me/D5.0 (recirculation SA ballot) PHY comments sheet for motion today
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>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:21 PM
To: Youhan Kim <youhank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGM] 11me/D5.0 (recirculation SA ballot) PHY comments sheet for motion today
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>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 7:56 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] 11me/D5.0 (recirculation SA ballot) PHY comments sheet for motion today
--- 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>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:45 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] 11me/D5.0 (recirculation SA ballot) PHY comments sheet for motion today
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:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
A document, 11-24/943r0, addressing the PHY comments CIDs 7124, 7125, 7126, 7127, 7128, 7129, 7130, 7131, 7132, 7133, 7134, and 7135 providing stated normative requirement for time of departure accuracy that is in line with the implied requirement currently in the 802.11REVme D5.0.
Regards,
Joseph Levy
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:36 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGM] 11me/D5.0 (recirculation SA ballot) PHY comments sheet for motion today
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hello,
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0727-34-000m-revme-phy-comments.xls
is posted. There are 16 comments in the PHY Motion 6 tab, 3 comments
in the PHY Motion 6b tab, and 12 comments in the Submission Required
tab (which can all be insufficient-detailed).
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk
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
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