Re: [802SEC] Comments on P802.11bn PAR

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

Dear Dorothy

As it stands, I am opposed to the approval of the P802.11bn PAR.

I have the following comments:

2.1 "Ultra High" violates the NesCom convention of not using comparative
words rather than specific numbers. You need to specify somewhere what
"Ultra High" means. (Also, it would be Ultra-High Reliability).

2.1 How is reliability defined? No where do I find out what type of
reliability is being sought.

You need a different title for this that matches the description in the
scope. I don't see any proposed additions that address reliability of
any kind.

5.2b

- The three items specified use "increasing", "improving" and
"improving" with no numerical targets. This would imply that any tiny
change would justify adding the new feature. Replace these with
numerical targets, e.g., 50% more throughput.

- The

- If you are going to compare to EHT MAC/PHY, there needs to be a
documented measurement for the baseline, or at least some sort of agreed
upon method. This method needs to be referenced.

- How is "tail of the latency distribution and jitter" "improved"?
What is the definition of "tail". At what value has the distribution
fallen off enough for it to be the "tail"? Are you decreasing the
integral of the tail?

- Efficient use of the medium does not uniquely define what is being
sought. Is it bits/Hz? idle time? Specify the type of efficiency that
is being improved and the numerical target.

- How is the power save "enhanced"? What is the characteristic that
is being measured with respect to power save? In the need, battery life
and lower energy bills are referenced, but the scope doesn't address either.

5.5
- The need for the project states "align with a symmetrical broadband
speed of 10 Gb/s", but nothing in the scope says that this performance
target will be met. Is this a requirement for the amendment? If so,
add it to the scope. If not, remove from Need.

- Expand "P2P" on first use.

8.1
- "For example, a user experiencing marginal connectivity at the edge
of a network today might experience improved connectivity with the
defined enhancements." Will connectivity actually be improved with the
changes? If so, how is connectivity measured and by what measure will
it be improved?

- "Conversely, an application (for example AR/VR) where the user
experiences feedback lag under the current baseline might see reduced
lag with the defined enhancements." The word "Conversely" doesn't
belong here. Both can be true. Also, "might see reduced lag" isn't
measureable. At some point the lag isn't noticeable. Is this a real
problem and how will the proposed project address it?

- "(Basis Service Set)" should just be ", BSS," (it is Basic, not
Basis, anyway).

CSD

1.2.4 a) The text does not provide any information on demonstrated
system feasibility. Which presentations show significant improvement in
802.11 performance?

1.2.4 b) The question does not have to do with testability. What
testing, modeling or simulation shows that the improvements promised is
possible?

1.2.5 a) The answer appears to be out of place. Balanced costs are item
b). a) is known cost factors. I think you need to swap the answers.

James Gilb

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1