| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi, Osama, Robert, I have reviewed Clause 18, 27 and Annex E. Editorial fixes required to align those clauses to the baseline (REVmd D5.0) are uploaded in 11-20/1736. That document also includes the fixes required to address the issues identified in the first email of this thread as well. Thanks. Youhan From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Youhan Kim CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. I will review Clause 27. Thanks. Youhan From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. We should, as an editorial exercise, update the draft so that we align with our baseline. This includes updating element ordering. But also numbering and making sure we quote the baseline correctly. And have the correct reference numbers.
Anybody want to volunteer to do that check? -Robert From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Youhan Kim
<youhank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Ganesh and Matt. I would suggest TGax to just focus on the definition of the management frames from transmitter point of view. Taking the Association Request frame as an example, REVmd 5.0 + 11ax D7.0 would result in (RED
are the ones added by 11ax)
So, if a transmitter wanted to include both the MSCS Descriptor and the HE Capabilities in an Association Request frame, then the standard is ambiguous on which should be included first. That is what TGax should resolve – by shifting
the order of the information being added by TGax by 1 (e.g. “45 HE Capabilities”
à “46 HE Capabilities”, “46 Channel Switch Timing”
à “47 Channel Switch Timing”, …) Regards, Youhan From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Matthew Fischer
Ganesh, The standard says that the order is strict: Fields and elements appear in the specified, relative order, skipping fields or elements that are not present.(#1500)(#185) STAs that encounter an But it also says that receivers are supposed to examine the entire frame. However, I have heard of implementations in the past which discard everything after they see the highest ordered item of which they are familiar. I guess that you could say that those implementations are not compliant with the language quoted above, even though that language is not exactly normative. But you could also say that mis-ordered elements are not compliant. Matthew Fischer Nice Guy Broadcom Inc. +1 408 543 3370 office On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:12 AM Venkatesan, Ganesh <ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 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 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 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 |