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
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
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
Resend it. Hope you could receive this email.
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