[STDS-802-11-TGBH] 22/1218 and 22/1329

[G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Kurt,

Thank you for all the work on your submissions 22/1218, presented today, and 22/1329.  Certainly makes us think.

 

Looking at 22/1218, the idea, as I read it, is:

In the non-AP STA, we have two MIBs; one for  “Device ID Implemented” and one for “Device ID Activated”. 

On the first association, only if both MIBs are true does the non-AP STA indicate to the AP to allocate an ID (in msg 3).

On subsequent associations, only if both MIBs are true does the non-AP STA send an ID in msg 2.

 

A suggestion expressed at today’s meeting was that all the non-AP STA need do is set a Device ID support bit in the RSN Extension Element then the AP knows what to do or expect.  Hence, the logic is simply Device ID support bit is set to 1 if both MIBs are true.  The MIB settings are then set on an BSS/ESS basis.

 

Having said that, do we really need the “Device ID Implemented” MIB?  All that matters is that the Device ID support bit is set to 1 and the AP knows what to do/expect.  If the non-AP STA does not support Device ID the support bit would not be present.  Hence, I am convincing myself that all we need do is to set the “support bit” on a BSS/ESS basis. 

 

This would simplify the text in 22/1329.  Plus, we need to change the text in Table 9-363 – Extended Capabilities field from

The STA sets the Device ID Support field to 1 to indicate support

for Device ID indication. Otherwise, the STA sets the

Device ID field to 0.

 

To something like:

 

If MIBxxx is true, the STA sets the Device ID Support field to 1 to indicate support

for Device ID indication. Otherwise, the STA sets the

Device ID field to 0. 

 

Then in the MIBxxx description make it clear that it is set on a BSS/ESS basis. 

 

Thanks

Graham

 

 

 

 

---

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