Re: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] Editors' teleconference: style guide related t

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

Hi Jay,

Thanks for the consideration and thanks the discussion.

Also thanks for Robert’s suggestion to make instruction more specific (using 10 and 11) rather than 9a and 9b.

Best,

Po-Kai

From: yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 4:56 PM
To: Huang, Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] Editors' teleconference: style guide related to "non-AP <entity> STA" vs. "<entity> non-AP STA"

Hi Po-kai,

To be more specific, 9a and 9b means it will use element order 10 and 11 (and shifting everything afterwards by plus 2) rather than at the end as proposed before

<Jay>Fine, please go ahead. 11bt draft 0.3 already reserves two seats for 11bi; no worry about the conflict issue with 11bt draft.

杨志杰10343608

Thanks

Best Regards

Jay Yang (杨志杰)

Original

From: Huang,Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>

To: 杨志杰10343608;

Cc: STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;

Date: 2026年06月16日 07:49

Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] Editors' teleconference: style guide related to "non-AP <entity> STA" vs. "<entity> non-AP STA"

Hi Jay,

As I have mentioned in the call, 9a and 9b in 11bi does not create interop/compatibility issues because it is new frame. Glad to now that you agree on that. To be more specific, 9a and 9b means it will use element order 10 and 11 (and shifting everything afterwards by plus 2) rather than at the end as proposed before.

The comment that I made in the thread about your specific technical proposal to put field after element, which does not exist in any of the authentication frame nowadays, is that it only works for new frame and does work for any existing Authentication frame due to legacy STA that always parse element together.

Again, I have no issue if we just want to maintain an order for field and element now and deal with any new proposal and ANA maintenance inconvenience in the future.

Best,

Po-Kai

From: yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 4:36 PM
To: Huang, Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] Editors' teleconference: style guide related to "non-AP <entity> STA" vs. "<entity> non-AP STA"

Hi Po-Kai,

Thank you for your response.

When the 11bi draft defines new fields in the authentication frame body, the compatibility issue already exists for legacy STAs, as legacy STAs have no means to decode 9a and 9b. In fact, since the authentication frame is an individual address frame, there is no need to consider how legacy STAs decode it, as 11bi devices will not send an authentication frame containing 9a and 9b to a legacy STA. This is why 9a and 9b work in 11bi.

So, Carol and our editors just make sure everything is in order in the authentication frame, e.g., if a new field is inserted ahead of elements, provide the right order number (Arabic numerals, but not mixed numbers and letters) to these field(s), and reorder all the subsequent elements. Does it make sense to you?

杨志杰10343608

Thanks

Best Regards

Jay Yang (杨志杰)

Original

From: Huang,Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>

To: STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;

Date: 2026年06月16日 02:00

Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] Editors' teleconference: style guide related to "non-AP <entity> STA" vs. "<entity> non-AP STA"

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---

Hi Jay,

I think what you are saying is only for a new frame. For an existing frame, we have legacy compatibility issues and we definitely can not do that since legacy STAs will not know these new rules of fields after elements. All legacy STAs parse elements together.

In any case, I am also ok to just have the right order for whatever we have now, and leave the future discussion to future.

Best,

Po-Kai

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-editors List *** <STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Jay Yang
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:46 AM
To: STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] Editors' teleconference: style guide related to "non-AP <entity> STA" vs. "<entity> non-AP STA"

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---

Hi All,

Regarding the second topic, we did not finish the discussion due to the time limit. In my view, it is possible to put a field after an element in the authentication frame body. The detailed reason is explained as follows:

If we put a field after the element, such a field must be combined with a special element. That is, the decoding results of the special element will determine whether to continue decoding the subsequent field. (The ideas is quite similar to 11bi draft5.0, whether to decode 9b, it relies on the decode result of 9a)

For example, let's assume the element as element A, including the indication field B, and a separated field as field C.

How does the receiver decode it?

If element A is not present, field C is also not present. The receiver does not need to decode field B if it cannot find element A based on element A's TLV information.

If element A is present, based on the indication field B. For example, if field B indicates that field C is present, the receiver will continue to decode C after decoding element A.

If element A is present, based on the indication field B. For example, if field B indicates that field C is not present, the receiver will not decode C after finishing the decoding of element A. Instead, it will continue to decode other elements based on the TLV information.

An exact example (for the 9a and 9b cases) can be found in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1215-00-00bi-cr-for-cid-r1-10.docx

Welcome to further insights.

杨志杰10343608

Thanks

Best Regards

Jay Yang (杨志杰)

Original

From: EdwardAu <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>

To: STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;

Date: 2026年06月12日 09:20

Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-EDITORS] Editors' teleconference: style guide related to "non-AP <entity> STA" vs. "<entity> non-AP STA"

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---

Dear Editors,
cc. Working Group participants,

It is a friendly reminder that Editors will meet remotely from 12:00pm ET to 1:00pm ET on Monday, 15 June 2026, and discuss on the following 2 items:

1) A contribution prepared by Matt, 11-26/1208, on his thoughts and proposed Editor's style guide related to adjectival ordering within entity names
2) An open discussion led by Carol on the current arrangement of the Authentication frame body table, and whether we should split the table into two - one for fields and another for elements.

Revision 1 of the tentative agenda items is available at:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1114-01-0000-editors-agenda-15-june-2026.pptx

Have a nice weekend and talk to you soon : )

Regards,
Edward

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:57 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Editors,

cc. Working Group participants,

Hope all is well.

As mentioned in my closing report of the Editors' meeting in the May 2026 wireless interim (see the snapshot below), we will organize a teleconference call from 12:00pm ET to 1:00pm ET on Monday, 15 June 2026, and discuss on the style guide related to "non-AP <entity> STA" vs. "<entity> non-AP STA". In particular, we will hear a presentation from Matt Fischer (thanks!) on his thoughts on this specific matter.

Please kindly join our discussion if you may be interested.

Regards,

Edward

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