Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] REVmd comments from SA1 on CDMG/CMMG

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

On Thu., Jan. 16, 2020, 03:02 M Montemurro, <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Jaimin, Dejian, Assaf,

Could I get some volunteers to review and provide resolutions to the following comments? Ideally we'd like to get these comments resolved between now and the end of February.

Just reply to this email to let me know which comments you volunteer to resolve.

Thanks,

Mike

Here are the comments:
REVmd PHY adhoc comments for SB1

CID Page Clause Duplicate of CID Resn Status Comment Proposed Change

4222 3524.00 25.5.7.1.3 "106" should be "106", and the size of "440x106" on the previous line should be made consistent with surrounding text As it says in the comment

4223 3544.00 25.6.9.2.3 "1320" is off by 6 orders of magnitude Add " <mult> 106" after the cited text. Also fix the size of "660x106" on the same line to be consistent with surrounding text

4225 3566.00 25.15.3 "540 " should be "540 MHz" As it says in the comment

4235 3528.00 25.6.5.5 "transmitted using duplication style" -- not defined Change to "duplicated"

4237 3513.00 25.5.1 " transmitted by CMMG SC MIMO" -- huh? Change to " with MIMO"

4559 3545.00 25.7.2.3 "A value of N in the Training Length field indicates that the AGC has 4N subfields and that the TRN- R/T
field has 5N subfields." but 20.9.2.2.3 (referred to from Table 25-7--Fields in the CMMG SIG field) says "A value of N in the Training Length field indicates 4xN AGC subfields and that the TRN-R/T field has N
TRN Units." so there is duplication and possibly also contradiction Delete the xref to 20.9.2.2.3 in Table 25-7

4693 24 CID 2036 follow-up, are the 128s in Figures 24-2/5 correct? As it says in the comment

4714 3504.00 25.3.9.1 Table 25-7---Fields in the CMMG SIG field needs the same changes as made under CID 1351. However Assaf reports that it "requires (a lot of) more work because the scrambling is not mentioned in the encoding process." Ask Assaf to kindly to the more work

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

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

CID	Page	Clause	Duplicate of CID	Resn Status	Comment	Proposed Change
4222	3524.00	25.5.7.1.3			"106" should be "10<sup>6</sup>", and the size of "440x10<sup>6</sup>" on the previous line should be made consistent with surrounding text	As it says in the comment
4223	3544.00	25.6.9.2.3			"1320" is off by 6 orders of magnitude	Add " <mult> 10<sup>6</sup>" after the cited text. Also fix the size of "660x10<sup>6</sup>" on the same line to be consistent with surrounding text
4225	3566.00	25.15.3			"540 " should be "540 MHz"	As it says in the comment
4235	3528.00	25.6.5.5			"transmitted using duplication style" -- not defined	Change to "duplicated"
4237	3513.00	25.5.1			" transmitted by CMMG SC MIMO" -- huh?	Change to " with MIMO"
4559	3545.00	25.7.2.3			"A value of N in the Training Length field indicates that the AGC has 4N subfields and that the TRN- R/T field has 5N subfields." but 20.9.2.2.3 (referred to from Table 25-7--Fields in the CMMG SIG field) says "A value of N in the Training Length field indicates 4xN AGC subfields and that the TRN-R/T field has N TRN Units." so there is duplication and possibly also contradiction	Delete the xref to 20.9.2.2.3 in Table 25-7
4693		24			CID 2036 follow-up, are the 128s in Figures 24-2/5 correct?	As it says in the comment
4714	3504.00	25.3.9.1			Table 25-7---Fields in the CMMG SIG field needs the same changes as made under CID 1351. However Assaf reports that it "requires (a lot of) more work because the scrambling is not mentioned in the encoding process."	Ask Assaf to kindly to the more work