6845 John 274.10 "NOTE--This part Delete spatial Revise agree with – Coffey the part of the needs further reuse, of whatever comment that notes development." Well, variety, and all that some yes! As an aside references to it in behaviour is not (though I think a the draft. defined, but relevant one) why disagree with the commenter’s does it need more proposed resolution development at this and instead, late stage? It must be propose an connected with the alternative solution complexity of the which is in line with spatial reuse problem, the vast majority of which is on a vastly proposed resolutions from diffreent scale to the dozens of other regular modes we commenters on the consider. Adding a same topic, which new 1024-QAM MCS resolution is to or another provide descriptive behavioural text to mode mostly resolve the lack of affects individual links completeness in and so any problems the current draft, are largely contained. TGax editor shall Not so with spatial incorporate reuse, where changes in everything affects everything else. A faulty spatial reuse mode or implementation could have disastrous consequences for other devices and BSSs, including the legacy installed base. We would be far better off to give this problem the respect it deserves by creating a new Task Group within 802.11 to consider it carefully, properly, and comprehensively. It can't be shoehorned into 802.11ax at this late stage. That's an aside because a letter ballot comment resolution can't properly consider that
6845 John Coffey 274.10 "NOTE--This part needs further development." Well, yes! As an aside (though I think a relevant one) why does it need more development at this late stage? It must be connected with the complexity of the spatial reuse problem, which is on a vastly diffreent scale to the regular modes we consider. Adding a new 1024-QAM MCS or another mode mostly affects individual links and so any problems are largely contained. Not so with spatial reuse, where everything affects everything else. A faulty spatial reuse mode or implementation could have disastrous consequences for other devices and BSSs, including the legacy installed base. We would be far better off to give this problem the respect it deserves by creating a new Task Group within 802.11 to consider it carefully, properly, and comprehensively. It can't be shoehorned into 802.11ax at this late stage. That's an aside because a letter ballot comment resolution can't properly consider that Delete spatial reuse, of whatever variety, and all references to it in the draft. Revise – agree with the part of the comment that notes that some behaviour is not defined, but disagree with the commenter’s proposed resolution and instead, propose an alternative solution which is in line with the vast majority of proposed resolutions from dozens of other commenters on the same topic, which resolution is to provide descriptive behavioural text to resolve the lack of completeness in the current draft, TGax editor shall incorporate changes in
11-16-1476-18-00ax-cr-for-section-25-9-spatial-reuse-operation-for-he-ppdu.docx