2250 171 9.20.5.1 The RAW assignment in RPS please clarify. Revised- element is transmitted to STAs Please see the in broadcast message, in discussion shown unlicensed band environment, in 11-14- under then, even with the most robust the heading for MCS, there is still no guarantee CID 2250, 2251. the broadcast message will be TGah editor to correctly delievered, e.g., make changes collision or interference with shown in 11-14- other RATs. Then, what under the happens if some of the intended heading for CID STAs do not receive the 2250, 2251. broadcast message? Does it mean the allocated resources to those STAs will be wasted? and those STAs will contend for the channel access as without RAW operation? 2251 172 9.20.5.1 some fundamental questions please clarify. Revised- about RAW: assign time slot to Please see the STAs; and STAs can content for discussion shown channel access in the assigned in 11-14- under time slot; how about the STAs the heading for does not support RAW, can CID 2250, 2251. they content too? What TGah editor to happens if the AP receives a make changes packet from a STA who shown in 11-14- transmitted in a slot not under the assigned to him? heading for CID 2250, 2251. 2465 171 9.20.5.1 "Assigning restricted uplink Add some Accepted- channel access windows to justification, or delete Agree in different groups of STA principle. The increases fairness." -- why? basic motion of Efficiency I can see, but fairness the RAW is not is not clear to me related with the fairness. So, remove that sentence. 2466 172 9.20.5.1 Surely S1G STAs are required Delete "DCF or" Revised- to use EDCA, not DCF? Ditto Agree in 174.52 principle. See the proposed change from CID 1210. 2467 172 9.20.5.1 "sensor STA", "sensor S1G "Sensor type STA" (5 Accepted- STA" (also at 210.34) instances in total) Agree with the comment.
2250 171 9.20.5.1 The RAW assignment in RPS element is transmitted to STAs in broadcast message, in unlicensed band environment, then, even with the most robust MCS, there is still no guarantee the broadcast message will be correctly delievered, e.g., collision or interference with other RATs. Then, what happens if some of the intended STAs do not receive the broadcast message? Does it mean the allocated resources to those STAs will be wasted? and those STAs will contend for the channel access as without RAW operation? please clarify. Revised- Please see the discussion shown in 11-14- under the heading for CID 2250, 2251. TGah editor to make changes shown in 11-14- under the heading for CID 2250, 2251. 2251 172 9.20.5.1 some fundamental questions about RAW: assign time slot to STAs; and STAs can content for channel access in the assigned time slot; how about the STAs does not support RAW, can they content too? What happens if the AP receives a packet from a STA who transmitted in a slot not assigned to him? please clarify. Revised- Please see the discussion shown in 11-14- under the heading for CID 2250, 2251. TGah editor to make changes shown in 11-14- under the heading for CID 2250, 2251. 2465 171 9.20.5.1 "Assigning restricted uplink channel access windows to different groups of STA increases fairness." -- why? Efficiency I can see, but fairness is not clear to me Add some justification, or delete Accepted- Agree in principle. The basic motion of the RAW is not related with the fairness. So, remove that sentence. 2466 172 9.20.5.1 Surely S1G STAs are required to use EDCA, not DCF? Ditto 174.52 Delete "DCF or" Revised- Agree in principle. See the proposed change from CID 1210. 2467 172 9.20.5.1 "sensor STA", "sensor S1G STA" (also at 210.34) "Sensor type STA" (5 instances in total) Accepted- Agree with the comment.
11-14-0232-00-00ah-lb200-clause-9-20-5-1-comment-resolution.docx