I haven't been following the details, but it seems to me that the
basic principles should be:
- Ideally there would be consensus on one person (or one lead within
a group of people) to resolve a given comment
- But the starting point is that anyone is free to develop a submission
to resolve any comment, and to present that submission to the TG, and
to ask for it to be approved by TG motion, and there is no intrinsic
priority order; all submissions are treated equally
Doesn't the new comment tool allow multiple assignees?
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
1 Cambridge Square, Cambridge CB4 0AE Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Jay Yang <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2025 01:28
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] FW: About 11bn CID 6423 on NPCA and DBE
Hi Binita , All,
That's an interesting topic, I would like to understand deeply on "since that is the procedure we are following in TGbn for other CIDs
". Do you mean if there is an intersection on the CIDs between two features(feature A, feature B), The PoC of A and B should do some coordination first, rather than re-assigning to member C directly? If so, I think Alfred should help clarify this point
first.
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