Re: [STDS-802-11] TGbh Motions

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

Hi All,

Some points:

I agree that we should not be running motions on what we have previously agreed that are not actionable (i.e., do not generate specification text). Hence, running the do we need a pre-association scheme which we already have seen support for is not very useful. Finding a way to drive the group to a solution or solutions that reach consensus is where we should focus.

I proposed down select voting at a previous meeting, as a way to achieve consensus, but there was no agreement to do so.
(Down select voting: take the list of existing schemes and conduct a vote to choose the preferred schemes, the scheme with the lowest # of votes is eliminated (if there is tie all the lowest go), then run again with x-1 schemes and eliminate again, …. until there is only one scheme left. Then motion the “most preferred” scheme, the last standing, with the understanding that if we want to provide a pre-association scheme this scheme has the most support and is therefore the “best” way forward for us.)
I am open to any proposal on how we can get to consensus.

If we can’t drive a pre-association solution or solutions to reach consensus we should consider if the content of the current draft is adequate to proceed with as is:

If so: Modify the PAR to remove the pre-association use case and proceed

If not:

Consider disbanding the TG and relinquishing the PAR
(i.e., the value of adding the content in the current draft is not adequate to justify the effort to complete the work)

Define what additional content should be added

My preference is to work to find a pre-association solution that is acceptable.

Regards,

Joseph

From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:02 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] TGbh Motions

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

Peter,

Just a clarification. You questioned my suggested Motion #1 “given the motion in Bangkok”. That was in fact only a Straw Poll but yes, the result was 17/4. However, at the telecon last week we had effectively the same straw poll and the result was 12/9. So what I was seeking to do was to motion it so as to get a definitive answer. If it passed (as per Bangkok) then the TG is actioned to find solution(s), If it failed (effectively as per telecon), then the matter is dropped and we pass on to the other questions.

Thanks

Graham

From: G Smith
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 2:43 PM
To: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11] TGbh Motions

Mark,

I agree with Mike’s proposals. See if you/we can come up with suitable words.

Graham

From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:57 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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