| 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 ---
Hi Steve – Thank you for volunteering to help resolve this comment. I look forward to receiving your input.
As requested by the TGme Chair, I am currently working on a contribution to clarify this issue for TGme discussion and to provide a resolution to this comment. This will be discussed at a future TGme teleconference (TBD), hopefully prior
to the July meeting. Regards, Joseph From: Steve Shellhammer <sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Mark and Joe, I can volunteer to help with the resolution of this comment. Let me look into helping with a resolution. I will see if I can send you something tomorrow. Regards, Steve From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@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 Working Group Reflector ---
All, FYI – my “No” vote on this topic (which may or may not represent others) was driven by a concern that I believe there is a mixture of OOK (generically) and MC-OOK, in the relevant 11ba text. It is very hard to tell if MC-OOK truly is just
an “example” of one way OOK could be done (and still be compliant to the Standard). There are statements that this is the case (MC-OOK is just one way to do it). But, there are other places where sentences seem to say (on a careful read) that MC-OOK is actually
required. I am assuming that the former (MC-OOK is just one way to do it) is the intention, and we should “clean up” other places (maybe including the definition, maybe adding a definition of OOK?) to be consistent with this. I’d be very curious if the 11ba experts agree with my general assumption, above. (I volunteered to help Joe with his resolution, so would like to head in the right direction.) Thanks. Mark From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hello everyone, During motions in REVme today, the resolution to approve the resolution to CID 2346 (see below) failed. The CID requests a definition for MC-OOK to be removed. I think it would be good to get feedback from those who participated in 11ba so that any changes made are aligned with the text rolled in from P802.11ba-2021. This CID has been assigned to Joseph Levy. Please provide feedback on this thread so that we can reach consensus on a resolution. Thanks,
REVme CC36 Comments
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 |