Re: [STDS-802-11] TGmd consideration of "obsolete" comments asking for 8

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

Hi 11md’ers,

I am working on Basic BlockAckReq and Basic BlockAck removal. I have come across PSMP operation which does appear to specify the basic variant.

10.29 PSMP operation

1564.54

Within a PSMP-DTT or PSMP-UTT between STAs where one is not an HT STA, BlockAckReq and BlockAck frames shall be exchanged through the use of an immediate block ack agreement and shall be the basic variants, i.e., Basic BlockAckReq and Basic BlockAck, respectively.

Later it specifies Basic or Multi-TID BlockAck,

At 1570.1

Acknowledgment for data transmitted under an immediate or HT-immediate block ack agreement may be

requested implicitly using PSMP Ack setting of the Ack Policy field in Data frames or explicitly with a Basic

BlockAckReq or Multi-TID BlockAckReq frame. An AP that transmits Data frames with the Ack Policy field

equal to PSMP Ack or that transmits a Basic BlockAckReq or Multi-TID BlockAckReq frame addressed to a

STA in a PSMP-DTT shall allocate sufficient time for the transmission of a Basic BlockAck frame or Multi-

TID BlockAck frame, respectively, in a PSMP-UTT allocated to that STA within the same PSMP sequence. A

STA that has received a PSMP frame and that receives a QoS Data frame with the Ack Policy field equal to

PSMP Ack or that receives a Basic BlockAckReq or Multi-TID BlockAckReq frame shall transmit a Basic

BlockAck frame or Multi-TID BlockAck frame, respectively, in the PSMP-UTT of the same PSMP sequence.

So my questions are:

1. In the section above from 1570.1, can I simply delete the “Basic BlockAck or” and leave it as just the Multi-TID variant?

2. What do I do with the “shall be the basic variants, i.e., Basic BlockAckReq and Basic BlockAck, respectively”? Can I substitute Multi-TID?

3. Does anyone care? Does anyone use PSMP? Do we have PSMP expert(s)?

4. Does this mean that we cannot delete Basic BlockAck, and Basic BlockAckReq?

Thanks

Graham

From: Dorothy Stanley [mailto:dstanley1389@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:54 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11] TGmd consideration of "obsolete" comments asking for 802.11 capability removal

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

802.11 members,

In the recent TGmd comment collection we received several comments requesting removal of specific capabilities.

Below is the current status of TGmd discussions on these comments/mechanisms after our Tuesday PM1 time slot.

I’ll announce the next discussion times and motion times for these comments on the reflector.
CID 68: Expect motion on Thursday this week PM2.

Thanks,

Dorothy

Note: The TGmd comment spreadsheet is here: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/17/11-17-0914-01-000m-revmd-wg-cc-comments.xls .

======================================

TGmd CID	Mechanism proposed to be removed	TGmd status
57	BlockAckReq	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared.
58	BlockAck variant	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared.
59	DLS	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared.
60	PCO	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared.
61	Non-HT blockack	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared. Separate submission for possible naming changes if “HT” distinction no longer needed.
62	STSL support	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared.
63	All pre-RSNA security mechanisms other than Open System authentication WEP	More discussion needed. Objection to removal. Straw poll result: Remove WEP as an independent cipher in TGmd; Retain fully defined TKIP Yes/No 16/8 Remove WEP and TKIP in TGmd Yes/No 15/6 Mark both WEP and TKIP as Obsolete/will be removed Yes/No 19/7 No change Yes/No 0/25
64	DMG OFDM	TGmd participants have no objection to remove; confirm direction with TGay
65	PCF	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared
66	StricklyOrdered service class	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared
67	L-SIG TXOP protection mechanism	Agree to remove; submission to be prepared
68	Obsolete operating classes in Table E-3.	Agreed to remove on prior teleconference; resolution prepared and ready for motion. Resolution is: “REVISED (PHY: 2017-06-29 17:20:26Z) CID 68 Remove obsolete Operating Classes from Table E-3 Editor p3567 E.1 Delete second and third sentences at top of p3567 above Table E-3 Change Operating Classes 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 and 55 to have Reserved in all fields except Operating Class, and remove asterisk following each of these Operating Classes.”
69	RIFS	Support for both removal and no change: Remove RIFS for non-DMG Yes/No 11-0 No change Yes/No 5-7

----------------------
Dorothy Stanley
Hewlett Packard Enterprise

dorothy.stanley@xxxxxxx
dstanley1389@xxxxxxxxx
+1 630-363-1389

_______________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.

Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.

If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.

Re: [STDS-802-11] TGmd consideration of "obsolete" comments asking for 802.11 capability removal - Basic BlockAck