Hi Zhenpeng,
Thanks for the mail discussion. Please see in line responses.
BR,
Xiangxin Gu
Institute of Communication Technology
From: Shizhenpeng <shizhenpeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 4:05 PM
To: 顾祥新 (Xiangxin Gu) <Xiangxin.Gu@xxxxxxxxxx>; yaohuang.wee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ganming(Ming Gan) <ming.gan@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Follow-up discussion on 25/1869 CR for MAPC agreement negotiation
Hi Xiangxin,
Thank you for commenting during today’s TGbn call. I would like to continue our discussion on resolution for CID #7680 in 25/1869 here.
As far as I understand, in 11bn D1.0 (and D1.1), only one Status Code field is present in MAPC Negotiation Response frame (see 9.6.7.68). It seems unnecessary to have the word
“corresponding” before “Status Code field”, so I deleted the word following the commenter’s suggestion. In general, I suppose it does not make a huge difference whether we keep the word “corresponding” or not. If the commenter (@Gaius) is okay with it, I can
also reject CID #7680 and keep the sentence as it is.
[// Xiangxin Gu] I guess there would be Status Code(s) for rejection operation. To be future-proof, it is better to keep the word “corresponding”.
I remember you also mentioned “Table 9-92” should be “Table 9-80” in the CR doc. In fact, “Table 9-92” was one of the updates made in 11bn D1.1 for consistency with REVmf (see
P904 in REVmf D1.0). Since the CR document is based on 11bn D1.1, I think no further change is needed.
[// Xiangxin Gu] You are right. Sorry for the wrong comment (I looked it up in 802.11-2024)
Hi Gaius,
Regarding CID #7680, Xiangxin suggests to keep “corresponding” in the sentence. As this CID is from you, could you take a look and let me know your preference?
Regards,
Zhenpeng
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1