Hi Junpeng,
Basically the Dot11OperationEntry you mentioned is within our baseline. For the 11be amendment, there is no additional variable added in this Dot11OperationEntry.
My personal take is that the variables in Dot11OperationEntry seems the necessary info for the operation of a BSS, which means the BSS may not operate well without any of such variable; while other Unsigned32 type variables outside of Dot11OperationEntry may relatively influence the specific feature more than the operation of BSS.
Best Regards！
Yan Li
Original
From: 娄俊鹏 <loujunpeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 李炎10200040;
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Date: 2026年03月10日 11:12
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] MIB(Annex C) TTT and POC of each feature: Please review 11-26/340 // MLME TTT: Please review 11-26/188
Hi yan，
Thanks for your agreement on "dot11AdaptiveOperationModeImplemented".
Regarding the Operation related Entry, it is necessary to clarify that in 11be, Dot11OperationEntry does exist, and most of the variables in it are of Unsigned32 type.
I agree with you that introducing Dot11UHROperationEntry is not necessarily required, but I have concerns about some Unsigned32 type variables currently proposed to be placed in dot11UHRStationConfigEntry.
Perhaps one alternative is: instead of introducing dot11UHROperationEntry, we could place the necessary Unsigned32 type variables from dot11UHRStationConfigEntry into Dot11OperationEntry? Of course, this may require us to further analyze the differences between the Unsigned32 type variables in Dot11OperationEntry and those in dot11StationConfigEntry, such as whether these variables are constants or dynamic variables, in order to make a more appropriate design decision.
Best regards,
Junpeng Lou
Hi Junpeng,
Thanks for your comments on the meeting.
According to the similar design in 11be, dot11UHROperationEntry is not needed at all and dot11UHRStationConfigEntry could include variable with unsigned32 as well.
For the dot11AdaptiveOperationModeImplemented, i
I'd like to summarize the problem as below:
In 11be, MIB of some features are added in the dot11StationConfigEntry, while others are added in the Dot11EHTStationConfigEntry. What's the principle for such classification and how to apply to 11bn MIB design?
Best Regards！
Yan Li
Original
To: 李炎10200040;
Date: 2026年03月10日 10:04
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] MIB(Annex C) TTT and POC of each feature: Please review 11-26/340 // MLME TTT: Please review 11-26/188
Hi yan,
Thank you for your efforts on the MIB. I have some questions regarding your contribution in 11-26/340 r3. Due to time constraints during the meeting, I may not have clearly articulated my concerns.
My current focus is on determining the most appropriate placement for certain MIB variables. Specifically, in D1.3, I noticed that some MIB variables (e.g., dot11PEDCARetryThreshold, dot11PEDCAConsecutiveAttempt, etc.) were associated with an operation entry. However, in 340 r3, these variables have been placed under Dot11UHRStationConfigEntry.
Additionally, I observed that dot11AdaptiveOperationModeImplemented has been placed in Dot11StationConfigEntry, rather than being grouped with variables like dot11DUOOptionImplemented in Dot11UHRStationConfigEntry.
This has led to some confusion regarding your interpretation of the roles and distinctions between Dot11UHRStationConfigEntry, Dot11StationConfigEntry, and dot11OperationEntry(dot11UHROperationEntry). Could you kindly share your thoughts on how these entries should be understood and differentiated?
Best regards,
Junpeng Lou
Hi Brian,
The revised doc(11-26/0340r1) is available on the mentor, please check it
Best Regards！
Yan Li
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
To: 李炎10200040;stds-802-11-tgbn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <stds-802-11-tgbn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;Binita Gupta (binitag) <binitag@xxxxxxxxx>;
Date: 2026年03月07日 01:33
Subject: RE: MIB(Annex C) TTT and POC of each feature: Please review 11-26/340 // MLME TTT: Please review 11-26/188
Many thanks Yan, this is great work and great progress. My review and proposed updates are attached.
Best wishes
Brian
Cisco Confidential
Hi MIB TTT members and POC for each MAC feature,
Please review the following document, which may modify the definition of the MIB (dot11XXX) corresponding to the feature you are working on
Hi MLME TTT members,
Please review the following doc, where the SMD information is added in the relevant primitive
Best Regards！
Yan Li