Re: [STDS-802-11] Proposed resolution for 802.11me Rev 1.0, CID 2346 on

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

Hello Joseph,

Thanks for preparing the comment resolution.

It seems to me MC-OOK represents the technical details of TGba much better than 'WUR OOK'. Clause 30 is based on the MC-OOK (using multi-carriers) to generate OOK waveform so I'm not sure it is a good idea to rename that to something unrelated. (also not sure if this type of change is in scope of 11me since TGba already spent a lot of time to get to this consensus).

Regarding the following text, 'should' is a valid normative verb so I don't understand why you consider 'should' is not a typical normative verb.

The WUR PHY uses the multicarrier on-off keying (MC-OOK) modulation for (#1128)WUR-Sync and WUR-Data fields. MC-OOK is defined as an on-off keying, modulated with a multicarrier signal. The multicarrier signal should be generated using contiguous 13 subcarriers, cantered within a 20 MHz channel, with a subcarrier spacing of 312.5 kHz and the centre subcarrier (#1131)being null. The subcarrier coefficients may take values from the BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, 64-QAM, or 256-QAM constellation symbols.

Reading the SP and motion results, it seems like there is no consensus in the group so better resolution should be 'REJECTED' and put the reason as 'the group couldn't reach consensus with the SP/motion results' and move on.

Best regards,

Minyoung

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 5:15 PM Joseph Levy <000019588066c6b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

Sorry – the while the links are correct the document number provided in the previous email is wrong: should be 11-22/1035r1.

Regards

Joseph

From: Joseph Levy <000019588066c6b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:12 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11] Proposed resolution for 802.11me Rev 1.0, CID 2346 on MC-OOK

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

Dear All,

TGme has been working to resolve CID 2346 for several months.

A motion to reject the comment was made during the TGme Ad Hoc in NYC, April 2022, the motion failed (4y,6n,5a).

Details regarding this motion and the way forward are provided in the “Comment resolution history” in 11-22/0135r1 “Proposed TGme Comment Resolution CID 2346”.

When 11-22/0135r0 was discussed during the TGme Ad Hoc in San Diego, August 2022 the proposed resolution was requested to be updated based on comments made during the Ad Hoc and posted to the WG reflector (hence this post).

11-22/0135r1 provides detailed discussion on the issue, proposes a way forward, and provides a detailed text proposal to resolve the comment.

Please review and comment on this proposed way forward. This contribution will be discussed at the upcoming 802.11 September Interim meeting in Hawaii in TGme, please see the TGme agenda for the time of the discussion.

Also pre-meeting discussion may be had on this email thread.

Regards,

Joseph Levy

InterDigital

New York

o: +1.631.622.4139

m: +1.516.835.9353

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

Re: [STDS-802-11] Proposed resolution for 802.11me Rev 1.0, CID 2346 on MC-OOK