Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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 ---
I would hope that this topic would be one for TGmf rather than TGme.
We have lived with the current state up to now, and it has not had irreparable harm to the deployment of products.
Getting the 802.11 revision published should be a high priority, and only those items that truly are an impairment to deployment should be considered prior to publication.
IMHO,
Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl                               Engineer, Senior Staff
IEEE 802 Executive Secretary  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
office: 801-492-4023                  10871 North 5750 West
cell:   801-376-6435                   Highland, UT 84003 USA

A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!


On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:34 AM Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Joe/Youhan,

 

Can I suggest we call it “The RMS of the time of departure error”?  That gets us a “smaller is better” answer, so “less than or equal to 80 ns” (or whatever number we choose) will work.

 

Mark

 

From: Joseph Levy <000019588066c6b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 16 May, 2024 6:49
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 ---

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.

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/24/11-24-0943-00-000m-proposed-resolution-for-cids-7124-7125-7126-7127-7128-7129-7130-7131-7132-7133-7134-7135-time-of-departure-accuracy-requirements.docx

 

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


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