| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
May 13 |
Do you agree to enhance the existing SCS framework in 11bn to enable a non-AP STA to dynamically switch from one QoS profile to another QoS profile for an SCS stream?
· The new QoS profile is selected from one of the previously accepted QoS profiles for that SCS stream. TBD on mechanism for QoS profile switch indication. Supporting document: 24/0825, 24/0660, 24/1752, 25/0494 |
Yue Qi |
Pending |
QoS |
MAC |
|
June 6 |
Do you agree to include overlapping bandwidth sounding in 11bn? - The relevant indications and frame exachanges are TBD.
Supporting document: ?? |
Qisheng Huang |
Pending |
Sounding |
PHY |
|
June 6 |
Do you agree to include overlapping bandwidth sounding in 11bn? - The overlapping bandwidth could be negotiated through exchange of invite/response frames before the transmission of UHR NDPA. - The sounding bandwidth announced by UHR NDPA might be less than the operating bandwidth of the UHR beamformee. Supporting document: ?? |
Qisheng Huang |
Pending |
Sounding |
PHY |
|
June 12 |
Do you support that Co-BF and Co-SR transmission TXOP shall follow the same frame exchange sequence framework? - Co-SR does not need to support EHT eMLSR non-AP STA
The reference docs for all the SPs are: [24/412, 25/879] |
Sherief Helwa |
Pending |
CBF/CSR |
Joint |
|
June 17 |
Do you agree to define a new NDP flavor (UHR NDP), that will be designated as OFDMA PPDU, thus be able to support OFDMA puncturing schemes? Supporting document: 25/694r2 |
Avner Epstein |
Pending |
Sounding |
Joint |
|
June 17 |
Do you agree to define a UHR Sounding Operation procedure, that will be based on EHT Sounding Operation but using UHR NDP instead of EHT NDP, in order to be able to perform fresh sounding for Partial BW DL MU-MIMO? Supporting document: 25/694r2 |
Avner Epstein |
Pending |
Sounding |
Joint |
|
July 17 |
SP1: Do you support to include additional information field(s) in the Co-TDMA ICR to what is already present in Draft 0.3 [1]. |
Klaus Doppler |
Pending |
CTDMA |
MAC |
|
July 17 |
SP2: Do you support to add an information field to the Co-TDMA ICR that the coordinated AP can use to indicate the time duration it would like to be allocated by the sharing AP as part of the Co-TDMA TXOP sharing procedure. The sharing AP can use this information to allocate time to the coordinated AP(s). Note: The indicated time duration to be allocated is a recommendation to the sharing AP. The PDT already includes the primary AC as a parameter in the ICF to help the polled AP to decide if it has wants to receive part of the TXOP from the sharing AP. |
Klaus Doppler |
Pending |
CTDMA |
MAC |
|
July 17 |
SP: Do you support that: · A Shared (Responding) AP may reject a Co-BF/Co-SR transmission or Co-BF sounding invitation received from a Sharing (Initiating) AP. · In case of rejection, the Shared (Responding) AP can include the reason for rejection in the Co-BF/Co-SR Response or Co-BF Sounding Response frame. o Reasons for rejecting a Co-BF/Co-SR transmission or Co-BF sounding invitation are TBD. |
Mahmoud Hasabel Naby |
Pending |
CBF/CSR |
Joint |
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1