| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---
Dear all, We had a little bit of work to do with ANA allocations from the 802.11ac D4.1 MDR. As a result, we moved one of the TGaf allocations from last time, and legitimized the numbers 802.11ac had selected.
Please comment by the end of this week if you see any issue. Otherwise will be formalized and published before the 802.11 session. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404 825 Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 Tel: +1 (408) 239 7485 ---------------------------------------------- From:
Peter Ecclesine (pecclesi) [mailto:pecclesi@xxxxxxxxx] Looks good for TGaf petere From:
Robert Stacey [mailto:rstacey@xxxxxxxxx] Looks good for TGac. -Robert On Jan 7, 2013, at 11:49 PM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hello Both, Here is the pending transaction. Please both check that this matches exactly what you now expect.
Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA) ---------------------------------------------- From: Peter
Ecclesine (pecclesi) [mailto:pecclesi@cisco.com] Hi Adrian, Yes, I confirm that TGaf supports TGac’s use of the bits. Best Regards, petere From: Stephens,
Adrian P [mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx] Hello Peter, Based on your input at the CAC, can you confirm that you are willing for me to move the TGaf allocation for bit 64? Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA) ---------------------------------------------- From: Robert
Stacey [mailto:rstacey@xxxxxxxxx] Hello Peter, If at all possible, I would prefer to move TGaf's allocation and legitimize TGac usage. The TGac change here was driven by semiconductor companies that had implementation
issues with small packets and A-MSDU (new implementations do hardware based A-MSDU aggregation/deaggregation). The change first appeared in D4.0, so it is not in the publicly released D3.0, but I still think it prudent to try to keep the current numbering. -Robert On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:24 AM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote: Hello Robert and Peter, We have a collision of numbering in Extended Capabilities between TGaf and TGac. TGac D4.1 uses bits 63-64 for the “Max Number of MSDUs in A-MSDU” field. I have allocated bit 64 to TGaf for “Channel Availability Query”. There are three possible responses: 1. Move
the TGaf allocation and legitimize the TGac usage 2. Grant
TGac a different allocation and leave TGaf where it is 3. Move
both. I’d like to hear your opinions on this. The question in my mind is whether there are likely to be any implementations of either encoding “out there”. If so, we minimize interop issues by keeping that allocation. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA) ---------------------------------------------- IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand. SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-EDITORS and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||