Fine. Propose a different SP then.
But discussing whether we should do something that “could be done in REVmf” seems like an unnecessarily confusing SP.
Dan.
--
“the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
On 7/13/26, 11:59 AM, "Mark Hamilton" <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dan/all,
I see these as two separate questions:
- Should TGbt ask that 802.11WG allocate an Element ID and work on a general solution to allow elements
that are > 255 octets? (I’ll note that this work might be done in TGbt, only because we are already a ways down this path, or it could be done in REVmf so it is clearly a generalized solution for use in/by many amendments in the future (P802.11bt included).)
- What should P802.11bt use for our near-term need for large data objects in our signaling (effectively,
Dan’s SP below)? (This could be with it noted that the question above *might* be forthcoming, from some TG.)
Mark
From: Harkins, Dan <00003862fd143b8a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2026 9:08
To: STDS-802-11-TGBT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBT] Request for Strawpoll in TGbt PM1 (July 13th)
Good idea for a straw poll but can we gauge the feeling of the group with a little wider of a question? How about:
DP: Which option would you support to address the issue of element fragmentation in draft 0.3:
-
Extended-Length elements (11-26/1265r2)
-
Use of fields instead of elements (11-26/1163r4)
-
Nothing, keep element fragmentation for PQC 802.1X
Regards,
Dan.
--
“the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
On 7/13/26, 10:55 AM, "Anirban Karmakar (akarmaka)" <00005e809b46533a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I would like to request this straw poll in the TGbt PM1 session, to ask the
group for its opinion on he following.
SP Text:
Do you support requesting the Working Group to allocate one of the values currently marked as reserved in Table 9-164 for use as the Element ID that identifies an Extended-Length Element?
thanks
Anirban
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1