1 / 6

Addressing the controversial comments in 9.10.2.4.2 and Annex “A”

This presentation analyzes and addresses the controversial comments related to the mandatory/optional issue in 9.10.2.4.2 and Annex "A". Voting totals and recommendations are provided.

trevorj
Download Presentation

Addressing the controversial comments in 9.10.2.4.2 and Annex “A”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Addressing the controversial comments in 9.10.2.4.2 and Annex “A” John M. Kowalski Sharp Labs John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

  2. Summary • 802.11e is supposed to direct the “9.2.10.4.2 & Annex ‘A’” ad hoc groups as to what kind of response we should have to the comments. • This presentation reflects an analysis of those comments related to the mandatory/optional issue (as well as “General” comments on the issue). • There are still other comments in 9.2.10.4.2 & Annex “A”- some of which are, IMO, easy to resolve & some I need help on- but aren’t in the above area. • This is not that story. John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

  3. Voting totals (from memory) • There were about 34 “No” voters - 17% • Meaning, there were approximately 200 “Yes” voters- 83% • There was 285 responses meaning the rest were “Abstains.” • The result of resolving these comments must be first, create no new “No” voters- do no harm! • Note: at this point any “E” regular should be able to address this issue technically from any position. John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

  4. I’ve got a little list… • “No” Voters wanting mandatory HCF polling: 7(1 of which maybe persuaded to change their vote based on their comment). • “No” Voters wanting the “ambiguity cleaned up”: 2 • “No” Voters wanting explicit optionality in the PICs: 2 • “No” Voters who want “any TSPEC may be rejected” removed since it’s a “policy issue.”: 1 (but voted “No” on lots of other things.) • Total: 12. John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

  5. My recommendation • Whereas: • We may be changing many more “Yes” votes to “No” votes by changing the nature of the text, AND • The current text represents the best compromise between performance, complexity and market requirements- as far as we can capture it in the text in a manner acceptable to all voters in the pool, • I recommend declining the comments above using bullet item “in blue” as our proposed resolution. John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

  6. “Other” in 9.10.2.4.2 & Annex A Comment 564 (Recommend declining). Comment 1064 – I recommend accepting this one. Comment 763- Need discussion Comment 877- Need discussion Comment 913– I recommend accepting this one. Comment 81 I recommend declining. John Kowalski, Sharp Labs

More Related