1 / 10

RFI Update Montréal

This article presents statistics on the resolution of TGs comments related to routing, forwarding, and interworking, including opinions, plans, polls, and a motion.

theresea
Télécharger la présentation

RFI Update Montréal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RFI Update Montréal Authors: Date: 2009-05-14 Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  2. Abstract A few statistics on the resolution of TGs comments tagged “Routing, Forwarding and Interworking”, including opinions, plans, polls and a motion. Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  3. A few statistics • In Montréal, we resolved • 54.3% of all RFI comments • 6.9 comments per hour (assuming approx. 18 hours of comment resolution), or 8.6 minutes per comment • We reviewed • 100% of all RFI comments, and • 12.68 comments per hour (assuming approx. 18 hours of comment resolution), or 4.7 minutes per comment • Assuming a rate of 6.9 comments per hour • We would need another 15.1 hours of meeting time – but we’ll probably need twice as much Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  4. Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  5. Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  6. Issue Identifiers • Issue identifiers will need to be refined • We will group them according to future submissions Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  7. Comments requiring heavy lifting • USN • “Proxied” • Explain the HWMP workflow (CID 502) • Addressing (addresses 4, 5 and 6) (CID 909), especially group addressing [cf. Lazy-WDS] Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  8. Questions to the group • The word “Proxied” is giving heartaches • It sounds too much like “proxy”, so “the proxied address of the proxy is the address of the proxied entity that the proxy is proxying for” becomes unintelligible (CIDs 496, 459, 458) • Suggest replacing “proxied address” with “external address” or similar • Other ideas? • The word “mesh portal” is also controversial • It was eliminated from the definitions in D3.00, but it still used a dozen times (CIDs 387) • Address extension causes complications (CIDs 1179, 1073, 1074, 765, 767) • We have to make references to “frames that originate in the MBSS” and “frames that are destined to a STA that is in the MBSS but is not proxying for another STA” • We have variable size frames everywhere (sometimes 4 addresses, sometimes 5, sometimes 6) for both management and data Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  9. Quick poll • Poll 1: Would you like to see the word “proxied” go away? • Yes / No / Don’t care • Poll 2: What is your disposition on the use of “mesh portal”? • “There should be no mesh portal”, only STAs and portals • “Mesh portal is a convenient shorthand that we should be able to use” • “I don’t care” • Poll 3: What is your disposition on the use of “Address Extension”? • “I like it the way it is” • “I would rather not have to refer to destinations outside-the-mesh, only destinations” • “I don’t understand the implications” • “I don’t care” Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

  10. Motion Move to adopt the resolutions to CIDs 32, 36, 40, 41, 42, 155, 158, 172, 181, 188, 196, 197, 200, 201, 263, 295, 296, 298, 319, 383, 384, 385, 386, 401, 432, 433, 441, 448, 449, 450, 451, 453, 457, 460, 468, 494, 497, 501, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 512, 514, 515, 516, 523, 528, 532, 601, 633, 634, 642, 646, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 657, 667, 668, 669, 677, 717, 718, 735, 773, 800, 811, 812, 814, 815, 816, 841, 842, 856, 857, 866, 869, 870, 871, 873, 875, 876, 877, 880, 883, 885, 922, 925, 929, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 947, 948, 949, 951, 952, 953, 954, 958, 959, 963, 965, 1083, 1086, 1088, 1094, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1122, 1128, 1150, 1152, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1180 with resolution codes Accept, Counter, or Reject as given in document 11-09/0471r6 . Moved by: Seconded by: Result (yes/no/abstain) Guenael Strutt, Motorola et al.

More Related