Hi Payam,
Thanks for your comment. I understand exactly what you are saying and had considered the exact approach in an earlier revision. However one reason I kept this format is to align with a very similar one in the basic variant MLE as shown
below:
So, just changing the Probe Request variant doesn’t solve the issue for the other variant. Since many changes are being made to this clause, may I suggest that we do the editorial clean up for all variants after D1.0 when we have a clearer
picture for both variants? Would that work for you?
Regards,
Rojan
From: Payam Torab <torab@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:25 PM
To: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 11-21/0301
Rojan – Is it possible to change this entire section
The format of the Link Info field of the Probe Request variant Multi-Link element is defined in Figure 9-788ek (Link Info field of the Probe
Request variant Multi-Link element format).
The
format of
the Link
Info field
of the
Probe Request
variant Multi-Link
element is
defined in
Figure 9- 788ek (Link Info field of the Probe Request variant Multi-Link element
format).
|
|
Request Profiles |
|
Octets: |
variable |
Figure 9-788ek—Link Info field of the Probe Request variant Multi-Link element
format
The
Request Profiles
field contains
zero or
more Per-STA
Profile subelements.
(#1732)
To
“The Link Info field contains zero or more Per-STA Profile subelements.”
---
If there is common agreement running a SP again can be quick.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1