Re: [802SEC] Comment responses and updated P802.11bn PAR and CSD/ was Re

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

Dorothy

I want to thank 802.11 for considering my comments. However, after
review, I have the following issues.

PAR
Comment: 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).

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.

Response: We understand that NesCom convention allows for an exception
to this that must be explained. For this reason, we have provided in
section 8.1 an explanation that is clarified following the comment.
Changes are made also to clarify the definition of reliability as the 3
items described in section 5.2b, and to provide quantified target for
these items.

Redirect: In 8.1, there is the claim that "IEEE 802.11 standard today
provide high reliability of MPDU transfer for most use cases
and deployment scenarios". Perhaps the group can point out the location
of the definition of reliability that IEEE Std 802.11 and how it
currently meets this definition. As Landsford's definition of wireless
states: "Wireless is a noisy, insecure, unreliable, piece of wire".

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.

Response: Thank you. Changes are made in order to provide quantified
values for the improvements, except for MPDU loss, for which there
hasn’t been improvements in previous amendments.

Redirect: The changes for throughput and latency are much improved,
thank you. However The response doesn't address the issue with
"reducing MAC Protocol Data Unit (MPDU) loss compared". This needs to
be replaced with a numerical target. The claim that no other amendment
improved MPDU loss is not relevant. Replace "reducing" with a numerical
target and a description of the conditions under which MPDU loss is
decreased.

Also: The AP power save is not part of the attempt to improve
reliability. I don't see why this is relevant to the claim of improved
reliability. I think that you need to change the title to "Enhanced
Performance For Extremely High Throughput MAC/PHY" which is what the
scope actually addresses.

I note that the comment to 802.15 is that "Power save doesn’t fall into
the definition of reliability,", hence the PAR title doesn't correctly
describe the scope.

New comments on PAR:
If we accept the premise that the current standard provides high
reliability, then there is nothing proposed in the scope that justifies
"Ultra High". That would be probably be an order of magnitude
improvement, at least. The justification in 8.1 is unpersuasive.

8.1 (editorial) Fix the numbered list with the strange character.

CSD

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

Response: Changes are made to clarify that there are presentations
showing gains for some features to meet the PAR’s objectives and clarify
that the study group is confident on the technical feasibility of at
least some of them.

Redirect: The changed text still does not indicate which presentations
(e.g., links or document numbers) that specifically show feasibility of
the proposed system. I am sure that there are presentations, but they
are not explicitly listed here so that they can be reviewed.

James Gilb

On 7/12/23 03:42, Stanley, Dorothy wrote:
> Dear EC members,
>
> Thank you all for your comments on the draft P802.11bn PAR and CSD.
> The comment responses and updated PAR and CSD documents are as indicated below.
>
> Comment responses: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-1166-03-0uhr-uhr-par-and-csd-comments.pptx
> PAR: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-0480-02-0uhr-uhr-proposed-par.pdf
> CSD: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-0079-09-0uhr-uhr-draft-proposed-csd.docx
>
> Please let me know of any questions.
>
> Thank you,
> Dorothy
>
>
> ------------------------
>
> Dorothy Stanley
>
> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
>
> dorothy.stanley@hpe.com<mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>
>
> +1 630-363-1389
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stanley, Dorothy
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 9:59 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Confirmation of comments received on the P802.11bn PAR
>
> Dear EC members,
>
> This email confirms receipt of comments from Paul Nikolich, James Gilb, 802.15, 802.3 and 802.1.
> Please let me know if you submitted comments and are not in the above list.
>
> The compendium of comments is in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-1237-03-0000-comments-from-802-on-p802-11bn-par.pptx .
>
>
> Thank you,
> Dorothy
>
>
>
> ------------------------
>
> Dorothy Stanley
>
> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
>
> dorothy.stanley@hpe.com<mailto:dorothy.stanley@hpe.com>
>
> +1 630-363-1389
>
>
> ----------
> 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

Re: [802SEC] Comment responses and updated P802.11bn PAR and CSD/ was Re: Confirmation of comments received on the P802.11bn PAR