Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] (Possible) agenda items for REVmf

[M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

OK. Let’s discuss in PM2.

Cheers,

Mike

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:48 PM <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mike,

 

Per our off-line discussion, if there is nothing else for the Wed meeting slot, I will defer my TIME_OF_DEPARTURE_REQUESTED topic to the next opportunity (telecon/session).

 

Thanks!  Mark

 

From: Greg White <g.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, 12 January, 2025 17:46
To: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'M Montemurro' <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>; Lili Hervieu <L.Hervieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: (Possible) agenda items for REVmf

 

Thanks Mark for mentioning the L4S support topic.  For this meeting we don’t intend to have a discussion in REVmf on this topic.    

 

-Greg

 

From: "mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx" <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, January 12, 2025 at 3:43 PM
To: "STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'M Montemurro' <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>, Greg White <g.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lili Hervieu <L.Hervieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: (Possible) agenda items for REVmf

 

Hi, Mike,

 

If you are still trying to fill time on the REVmf agenda, here are some suggestions:

• I see these posted, but not (yet) on your agenda deck (I’m sure you’re still synching up):
• 11-24/1908r2 :REVme SB1 CID6081 do over – Hart
• 11-25/0132r0: MLO extensions to 11s mesh – Patil
• 11-25/0133r0: EBCS UL transmission – Patil
• The proponents of L4S support over 802.11 wanted to bring some materials (or maybe just discussion) to REVmf, if they are ready (in parallel with some discussions in TGbn) – White, Hervieu
• I would like to bring a discussion (and can have a presentation for Wednesday, if it is appropriate and there is time) on the existing text description of the behavior for when TIME_OF_DEPARTURE_REQUESTED is false.  I had put a comment into TGbk on this, which I then pulled when I realized that TGbk’s text matched a bunch of existing baseline text – all of which I think is poorly written (it leaves things very vague/unstated for this case).  I think it’s a trivial fix, but only if the group agrees with the direction.  I can also wait an put in a comment on our D1.0, if you’d rather.

 

Mark

---

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