Hi Po-Kai,
your suggested option works well for having distinguishable terms in the description.
Thanks and Regards,
Michael
Von: Huang, Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Januar 2026 16:49
An: Grigat, Michael <M.Grigat@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBI] Review of some LB292 editorial comments
Hi Michael,
I think I get what you mean.
One option to revise is then the following
yellow. Will this work?
For BPE FA, an AP affiliated with an AP MLD shall set the Address 1 field value of a group addressed
frame to:
— OTAGroupAddress = (group_address_46 + EPP_Group_Address_Anonymization_Offset)
mod 246, if
the group address is other than the broadcast address
— OTAGroupAddress = broadcast address, if the group address is the broadcast address
where
group_address_46 is 46 bits of the group address excluding the local/global and individual/group bits and
where EPP_Group_Address_Anonymization_Offset is the single EPP_Group_Address_Anonymization_
Offset value extracted from the BPE MHA parameter set.
Best,
Po-Kai
From:
M.Grigat@xxxxxxxxxx <M.Grigat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 4:38 AM
To: Huang, Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-TGBI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [STDS-802-11-TGBI] Review of some LB292 editorial comments
Dear Po-Kai,
I have one comment for rejected CID 3072. Is the text description clear if the term “group address” is used twice in the sentence for different content/length of the address?
“where
group address is 46 bits of the group address excluding the local/global and individual/group bits”
BR Michael
Deutsche Telekom AG
Product & Technology
Group Technology
Dipl.-Ing. Michael Grigat
Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 9, 64295 Darmstadt
+49 6151 583-3533 (Phone)
+49 170 8561625 (Mobile)
The compulsory statement can be found here:
www.telekom.com/compulsory-statement
Von: Huang, Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Dezember 2025 20:46
An: STDS-802-11-TGBI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [STDS-802-11-TGBI] Review of some LB292 editorial comments
Hi all,
Please see the link below for the document that addresses 39 editorial CIDs (document 25/2338).
I have considered the resolutions of these editorial comments as simple editorial revision.
The intention is to review this document through reflector rather than reviewing them one by one during presentation. Please take a look and let me know if you have further comments. If you think
certain comments should be reviewed through presentation, please also let me know, and I will remove them from the document.
Thanks in advance for the review.
Best,
Po-Kai
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBI list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBI&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBI&A=1