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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Editorial Issue



Hi,

Proposed text in 1699r1 was the right one.

We changed the field position of the field in the RNR, which could have cause a modification of the definition, but the definition was actually wrong before the field position, so no need for definition change..

So we should go back to the text proposed in1699r1.

Thanks

Laurent

 

From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Osama Aboul-Magd
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 8:33 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Editorial Issue

 

Thanks Robert. I'll add to the agenda for the teleconference tomorrow.

 

Regards;

Osama.

 

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:31, Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Osama,

 

Could we put this on the agenda for the TGax call on Tuesday?

 

The issue is the sentence at 173.11 (in D6.0): “The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field is in the same colocated AP set as the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise.

 

Maybe somebody can refresh my memory on why we keep switching between the two version of the text.

 

-Robert

 

From: Ganming (Ming) <ming.gan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 11:25 PM
To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Editorial Issue

 

Hello Robert, Laurent and Abhi,

 

Robert, thanks for your response and the provided story.  After checking these two passed CR document again, I found the corresponding modification in 19/1150r3 (Abhi) is about wording, and 19/1699r1(Laurent) is a technical change because it proposed to move the place of Co-Located AP subfield and slightly change its meaning. So I think we should change it mainly according to the resolution in 19/1699r1. Please correct me if I am not right.

 

Next what should we do? Revise it based on this discussion and the passed CR documents or need a new CR document to amend it?  

 

Best wishes

Ming Gan

 

发件人: Stacey, Robert [mailto:robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 202059 3:52
收件人: Ganming (Ming) <ming.gan@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Editorial Issue

 

Hello Ming,

 

Sorry for the late response.

 

I dug into this a little more:

In September 2019, we passed the following motion 131:

Move to accept text changes in doc 11-19/1699r1

Move: Laurent Cariou                    Second: Bin Tian

Approved with unanimous consnet

 

In 19/1699r1 there was an instruction to delete the sentence:

The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field is co-located with the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise, or if the information is unknown.

 

And add the sentence:

The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if the reported AP is in the co-located AP set of the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise.

 

There was also a resolution to #21288 approved in 19/1150r3 that changed the original text to:

P164L56: The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field is in the same co-located AP set as the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise, or if the information is unknown.

 

I believe I resolved the conflict by as follows (assuming that the intent of M131 was to move the sentence rather than modify it):

The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field is in the same colocated AP set as the transmitting AP(#21288). It is set to 0 otherwise.(M131)

(this was the text I sent for review)

 

After review I we ended up with (in D5.0):

The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if the reported AP is in the same co-located AP set as the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise.

 

Meaning we took the M131 text over the #21288 text.

 

I don’t actually have a record of why it changed “reported AP” to “every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field”. What is likely is that somebody reported it as an editing error (citing #21288) and I corrected it based on that but did not remember the conflict.

 

So it seems the changes originate with conflicting motions around the time D5.0 was produced.

 

-Robert

 

 

 

From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Ganming (Ming)
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 11:13 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Editorial Issue

 

Resend it. Hope you could receive this email.

 

发件人: Ganming (Ming)
发送时间: 2020426 9:21
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Editorial Issue

 

Hello Robert,

In ax D6.0, it has the following sentence in Page 173 Line10

The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field is in the same co-located AP set as the transmitting AP.

Is that every AP, not the reported AP? I remembered it was the reported AP in ax draft 5.0 because we moved the Co-Located AP subfield into the BSS Parameters subfield from TBTT Information Header subfield. And also I could not find which document made this change by tracking Comments on D5.0 data sheet.

 

Best wishes

Ming Gan

 

 


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1