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

Re: [STDS-802-11] TGbh Motions

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Thanks all,

I would recommend that you create a motion ( or multiple) that establishes consensus on whether anything needs to be added to the current draft. (I guess you could be specific of proposals that have not reached the threshold to be added).

Based on that result, you could run a further motion on whether the current draft is sufficient to go to LB. (or even run the LB motion)

If neither of the above motions achieve consensus, you could run motions to disband the TG and move the work to TGbi (I would assume).

I don't think it's worthwhile to discuss the PAR at this point - just adds further complexity. If the TG feels strongly that the PAR needs to change, then do the work on the PAR - but decide on the path first. (given the group has been discussing this for more than 2 yrs now)

Cheers,

Mike 

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 12:37 PM Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

Graham,

 

                Motion #1 strikes me as being very close in meaning to “do you want to see support for pre-association use cases in the TGbh draft?” I mean it basically encapsulates all of the schemes that have been raised to cover pre-association use cases. So, I’d expect motion #1 to pass. We already know that to be the case given the motion in Bangkok regarding support for pre-association use cases. Thus, I don’t see much gained by running motion #1. Further, we’ve seen every single individual pre-association scheme shot down for lack of sufficient support. What are we gaining by repeatedly running this motion in various forms? I expect we’ll get a result of “yes, we want at least one of those schemes in the draft” because, hey, the motion has something for everyone, so everyone will vote in the affirmative in the hopes of getting their favorite scheme into the draft. Then when we get down to brass tacks and try to choose which scheme it will be, none will gain the 75% needed to be selected.

 

                I share your frustration at our progress, but I don’t think motion #1 will lead to the other three motions at all. Then we’re in the same boat as we have been for months.

 

                                Kind regards,

                                -Peter

 

From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2023 8:41 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] TGbh Motions

 

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

Hi Mark,

Further to the meeting today, my suggestions for Motions would be as follows:

 

First just check if we could proceed.

Either

1 – “At least one other scheme should be added to the TGbh draft?”

e.g., one or more of the following schemes should be included in the Draft

  • SMA
  • MAAD
  • IRM
  • Non-encrypted ID in IE (AP allocates)
  • Non-encrypted ID in IE (STA allocates )
  • IRMA
  • RRCM
  • ID encoding”

 

If #1 fails, then we are faced with the single scheme as per Draft 0.2.  So now we need to address the PAR issue

 

2 – “Do you agree that draft 0.2 satisfies the TGbh PAR?

 

If fails, then

 

3 – “Should the TGbh PAR be amended?  

 

If that fails then

 

4 – “Should TGbh be disbanded?

 

If that fails, I don’t know what else to motion.

 

Graham

 

 

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