| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Tomo, Thanks. Please find my replies below and the updated document. Best Regards, Liwen From: tomoko.adachi.b99@mail.toshiba <tomoko.adachi.b99@mail.toshiba>
Hi Liwen,
Thanks for considering.
I inserted my replies, too.
Best regards, tomo From: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>
Hi tomo, Thanks for the comments. Please find my replies below. Best Regards, Liwen NXP Confidential From:
tomoko.adachi.b99@mail.toshiba <tomoko.adachi.b99@mail.toshiba>
Hi Liwen,
Some comments:
l
The resolution for CID 19111 should be revised, not rejected, as change is made according to it.
[Liwen] Fixed
l
I think the resolution for CID 18903 is not convincing. Why not explain that Figure 9-66 is changed to express acknowledgement context and AID11 being 2008 is not
the case, as it is for feedback (Figure 9-66b)? [Liwen] You are right. How about the following change NOTE 2—More than one Feedback Per AID TID Info field with the same value in the AID11 field can be present in the Multi-STA BlockAck frame.
(#18903) If AID11 field is equal to 2008 in a Feedback Per AID TID Info field, the Feedback Per AID TID Info field is applies to all receiving UHR STAs. [tomo] Thanks. A minor comment for the above text, “…, the Feedback Per AID TID Infor field applies to all receiving UHR STAs.” (deleted “is” before “applies”.) And please don’t forget to change
the resolution from rejected to revised. [Liwen] ok.
l
For the text change according to CID 19216 in 37.6.1, I think you meant that in the TB PPDU, if any one of the transmitter is a non-UHR STA, then the UHR AP shall
not transmit such a Multi-STA BlockAck frame. And “an UHR
…” should be “a UHR
…”. How about saying like “A UHR AP shall not transmit a Multi-STA BlockAck frame that is solicited by a TB PPDU wherein any one of the transmitters is a non-UHR STA and includes
…”? [Liwen] In the proposed sentence, it seems the “includes..” in “wherein any one of
the transmitters is a non-UHR STA and includes…” belong to “any one of the transmitters”. This will create confusion. [tomo] I see. Then, how about “A UHR AP shall not transmit a Multi-STA BlockAck frame that is solicited by a TB PPDU wherein any one of the transmitters is a non-UHR STA and
that includes …”? [Liwen] This works. Best regards, tomo From: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>
Hi all, Please find the comment resolutions for subclause 9.3.1.8.6.1 in 11-26/1766. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1769-00-00bn-lb296-subclause-9-3-1-8-6-1-cids.docx If you have comments, please let me know. Hi Alfred, Please add it to the agenda. Best Regards, Liwen NXP Confidential 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
NXP Confidential 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 |
Attachment:
11-26-1769-01-00bn-LB296 subclause 9.3.1.8.6.1 CIDs.docx
Description: 11-26-1769-01-00bn-LB296 subclause 9.3.1.8.6.1 CIDs.docx