> If there are something that I am not considered or people has strong opinion to keep the current proposed
text here, I suggest to change “
doesn’t
have dot11RestrictedTWTOptionImplemented set to true”
to “has
dot11RestrictedTWTOptionImplemented set to false”.
There is a potential difference in the situation where the MIB attribute
in question does not exist.
See Subclause 1.4:
(#2005)A reference to a value of a MIB attribute of the form “if <MIB attribute> is <x>” is to be interpreted
as though written “if <MIB attribute> is present and is <x>”. A reference to a value of a MIB attribute of the
form “if <MIB attribute> is not <x>” is to be interpreted as though written “if <MIB attribute> is not
present, or is present and is not <x>”.
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:
全映桥
(Yingqiao Quan) <yingqiao.quan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 June 2023 10:34
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复:
[STDS-802-11-TGBE] Please review 11-23/847r2 (deferred CIDs)
Hi Chunyu,
Thanks for your document.
There are some minor concern for the proposed text of CID# 16146.
1.
What is the definition of
“the
Broadcast TWT advertising Management frames”
? Does it refer to Beacon, Probe/(re)Association Request/Response frames? It might be clarified.
2.
IMO, how does the non-AP EHT STAs that don’t
support R-TWT recognize the overlapping quiet is implementation dependent and is out of the scope of this standard, so we may just simply point it out.
3.
If there are something that I am not considered or people has strong opinion to keep the current
proposed text here, I suggest to change “
doesn’t
have dot11RestrictedTWTOptionImplemented set to true”
to “has
dot11RestrictedTWTOptionImplemented set to false”.
|
16146 |
SunHee Baek |
35.8.5.2 |
621.10 |
In R-TWT, overlapping quiet interval sets 1 TU to guarantee R-TWT SP, but the current spec doesn't support any method for non-AP EHT STAs that don't support R-TWT to ignore
overlapping quiet interval. |
Please specify how non-AP EHT STAs that don't support R-TWT may behave as if overlapping quiet intervals do not exist. |
Revised. An EHT non-AP STA can still choose to parse the TWT element to extract R-TWT info
and choose to ignore overlapping intervals as an example. Add a NOTE. TGbe editor: please revise as specified in this doc {11-23/847r2} tagged by #16146. |
(#16146)NOTE3—An
EHT non-AP STA that is not a member of an R-TWT SP or
that doesn’t have dot11RestrictedTWTOptionImplemented
set to true might parse the TWT element in the Broadcast TWT advertising Management frames and decide whether an quiet interval is an overlapping one and decide whether to
ignore it.
BR，
Yingqiao Quan
Communication Standards Devision
发件人:
Chunyu Hu <chunyuhu07@xxxxxxxxx>
发送时间:
2023年6月21日
13:30
收件人:
STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题:
[STDS-802-11-TGBE] Please review 11-23/847r2 (deferred CIDs)
|
注意:
这封邮件来自于外部。除非你确定邮件内容安全，否则不要点击任何链接和附件。
|
Hi, all:
We deferred a few CIDs in presenting 11-23/847r1. Would the folks requesting the deferral or comments please review and/or share any further thoughts you may
have on the CIDs below?
16700, 16701: @Yonggang Fang
15935, 16652: @Gaurang Naik
16678: @Qi Wang
16420, 16424: @Jeongki Kim
15834, 17090: revised per discussion in mtg. @Mark Rison @Rubayet
Shafin would you please review?
Let me know if I miss any. Thx!
Chunyu
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1
|
|
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1