| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Sherif,
First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for your efforts in preparing this document.
I intended to raise this question during last week's ad-hoc, but due to time constraints, I was unable to do so.
Hence, I am reaching out via email for an offline discussion.
I have a follow-up question regarding CID 809, which states:
"This commenter is not sure why LOM operation is necessary. If LOM operates in an event-driven manner, it is very similar to DPS, so the difference between DPS LC mode and LOM should be clearly shown in the draft. Or, if LOM operates in a time-based manner, it becomes similar to partial unavailability, and it is desirable to merge or move fields that can be defined in LOM into DUO or PUO."
The resolution for this CID is “Reject,” and the reasoning is that DPS and AOM are separate functionalities, which I agree with.
However, what I actually want to highlight is the part emphasized above.
Is a separate mode for coex operation truly necessary if it is not aligned with mechanisms like DUO or PUO?
As you may recall, we continued discussions on partial unavailability last year,
and this was entirely based on time-based operation, which aligns well with DUO or PUO.
If the goal is simply to switch modes in an event-driven manner, there are already alternatives available, such as OMN.
Furthermore, I am not entirely convinced how parameters like PPDU duration, maximum MCS, or LDPC are directly relevant to coexistence mechanisms within the STA.
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Seongho.
|
|
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