IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs Further Clarifications to FTM Protocol Date: 2015-05-13 Author: Name Affiliation Address Phone Email Carlos Qualcomm Aldana Corporation Brian Hart Cisco Systems Revision history: Initial submission for PTSF value to avoid conflict between FTM trigger frame and initial Fine v0 : Timing Measurement frame. Addressing CIDs for SB v1 : Added Brian Hart as co-author. v2 : Pertinent Comments : CID Clause Type of Comment Proposed Change Number a 5172 4 855 13 T Replace with no longer exists. 5173 4 24 T In ASAP=0 case, how do we We could set bound to the ensure that the FTM trigger Partial TSF Timer that is greater frame is not transmitted or equal to K*Min Delta FTM + before the successful TXTIME(FTM_1) + aSIFSTime+ transmission of FTM_1? TXTIME(Ack), where K is the maximum number of FTM_1 retransmissions the responding STA will attempt. 5175 4 37 T The "No preference" field in Fix as in comment and add Table 8-247 should only be corresponding language in allowed in the associated 10.24.6 state. In the unassociated state, it is hard for the responding STA to know the initiating STA's capability.
IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs Further Clarifications to FTM Protocol Date: 2015-05-13 Author: Name Affiliation Address Phone Email Carlos Aldana Qualcomm Corporation Brian Hart Cisco Systems Revision history: v0 : Initial submission for PTSF value to avoid conflict between FTM trigger frame and initial Fine Timing Measurement frame. v1 : Addressing CIDs for SB v2 : Added Brian Hart as co-author. Pertinent Comments : CID Clause Number Type of Comment Proposed Change 5172 4 855 13 T no longer exists. Replace with 5173 4 24 T In ASAP=0 case, how do we ensure that the FTM trigger frame is not transmitted before the successful transmission of FTM_1? We could set a bound to the Partial TSF Timer that is greater or equal to K*Min Delta FTM + TXTIME(FTM_1) + aSIFSTime+ TXTIME(Ack), where K is the maximum number of FTM_1 retransmissions the responding STA will attempt. 5175 4 37 T The "No preference" field in Table 8-247 should only be allowed in the associated state. In the unassociated state, it is hard for the responding STA to know the initiating STA's capability. Fix as in comment and add corresponding language in 10.24.6
11-15-0171-03-000m-clarification-to-fine-timing-protocol.docx