| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Thanks Mark for your comment.
The straw poll to approve revision 9 of the document was passed in SG, and the motion to submit this document to EC was passed in mid-week Plenary. Sorry, at
this point, we can incorporate your changes. Revision 6 and 9 have track changes enabled. So, you should be able to see all the changes. Regarding your question on legacy coexistence, the intend is (a) which seemed clear to the people who were present in the room. Regards, Shahrnaz From: Mark Rison [mailto:m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Hello, Are all the changes tracked? It seems not, since no changes are shown in 5.2.b. Could you provide the list of changes, please? I have an observation and a question on the tracked changes: > The WUR, used as a companion radio to the primary connectivity radio in the same band, coexist with legacy IEEE 802.11 devices and has an active receiver power consumption of less than one milliwatt. The observation is that "coexist" should be "coexists", since the subject is "WUR", which is singular. The question is how this sentence is to be interpreted. Is it: a) If the WUR is in the same band as the PCR, then it coexists with legacy devices and consumes < 1 mW on rx or b) The WUR is in the same band as the PCR, coexists with legacy devices and consumes < 1 mW on rx I didn't think there had been agreement that the WUR necessarily has to be in the same band as the PCR, so I guess it's not b). But a) is wrong because the WUR should coexists and be power-efficient in any case. So I suggest the following rewording: The WUR is a companion radio to the primary connectivity radio. The WUR coexists with legacy IEEE 802.11 devices and has an active receiver power consumption of less than one milliwatt. I also have the following observations on 5.2.b: > While this project focuses on the specification of the PHY and the MAC layers of the WUR operation, it is expected that minor changes to the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer may be needed, e.g. the introduction of a new capability element, etc. "specification of […] the MAC layers of the WUR operation" will result in "changes to the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer", since P802.11ba is an amendment to 802.11. So this needs to be changed to something like "minor changes to the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer for the primary connectivity radio". > The new amendment utilizes the existing privacy and encryption methods Is that a given? It's not immediately obvious to me that WUR will necessarily use the existing mechanisms (4WH, CCMP/GCMP, etc.). Maybe "where possible" should be added? And shouldn't this first sentence be a separate bullet to the rest (the stuff about latency – actually the last bit about range should also have its own bullet)? 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 From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Azizi, Shahrnaz --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi Jon, and all Attached is the modified PAR proposal. It includes the resolutions which were agreed during the Tuesday PM3 session, and in addition new modifications to section
5.2.b. Please review section
5.2.b. Scope of the project and let me know if you have any comments. Regards, Shahrnaz
From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Minyoung, I would like to add feedback from the 802.11 PAR Review SC to your agenda. 11-16/1326r1: I am going to be late to PM1, but will arrive shortly. The feedback on your PAR can be taken together with the other feedback you may receive from the other 802 sources. Regards, Jon Rosdahl 802.11 PAR Review SC Chair
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Park, Minyoung <minyoung.park@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.
If there is no LEAVE button here, try
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO. Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.
If there is no LEAVE button here, try
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO. Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect. Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button. If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ |