Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Resolutions to selected MAC adhoc DISCUSS comments

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 7:23 PM M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Mark,

In response to your comments:

CID 1464. According to clause 9.3.3 there are Beacon frames. There is no separate DMG beacon frame definition and those elements are always (extended is optionally present) in Beacon frames, of which DMG is a type. I think the change is fine.

CID 1515. I updated according to your proposed wording.

CID 1689. Agreed.

I posted https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0878-01-000m-tgme-lb258-misc-mac-comment-resolutions.docx to address your comments.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:58 PM <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike,

Comments:
On CID 1464, I was concerned about this change, thinking it would apply to PBSS now. I think PBSS uses DMG Beacon, not Beacon, right? So, do we need to also modify to cover DMG Beacons? Somewhat similarly on CID 1465, I confess my ignorance here on whether PBSS also uses BSSBasicRateSet.
CID 1515: I think your proposed resolution doesn’t quite parse correctly. The final sentence would be “A group addressed MPDU shall not be a fragment of an MSDU or MMPDU even if their length exceeds dot11FragmentationThreshold.” 1) I don’t’ think an MPUD “is” a fragment, it carries a fragment. 2) I think we need to say “be fragmented” (not “be a fragment”) to align with the ending part of the sentence. 3) We have a singular/plural alignment issue. I would suggest this as the new sentence: “A group addressed MPDU shall not carry a fragmented MSDU or MMPDU even if its length exceeds dot11FragmentationThreshold.”
CID 1689: We have already discussed and motioned CID 1813, which adds the word “robust”, so the “For all other…” bullet now only includes robust Management frames. Thus, Beacons (and Probe Responses, etc.) no longer are covered by this bullet, already. I think any change for this CID is now unnecessary (and potentially confusing about why we said “robust Management frames except for Beacon frames”). I think we mark this one as resolved per the same resolution as CID 1813.

I’m okay with the rest. Thanks!

Mark

From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:23 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Resolutions to selected MAC adhoc DISCUSS comments

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi all,

I just posted https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0878-00-000m-tgme-lb258-misc-mac-comment-resolutions.docx which provides comment resolutions to the following MAC adhoc comments with the adhoc status of "Discuss": CIDs 1388, 1464, 1465, 1515, 1528, 1689, 1756, 1792, 1835, 1551, and 1552.

Please provide feedback and in parallel, I'll find agenda time to discuss the resolutions.

Cheers,

Mike

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