Hi
Seongho,
The Per AID TID Info field carrying the acknowledgement to Management frame has Ack Type field equal to 1.
The added text has Ack Type field equal to 0. They are different. So the proposed change is ok.
Best Regards,
Liwen
NXP Confidential
From:
변성호 <sh.byeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2026 6:26 PM
To: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 변성호 <sh.byeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE:(2) [STDS-802-11-TGBN] [EXT] RE: MAC PDT 11-26/1769 for subclause 9.3.1.8.6.1
|
Caution: This is an external
email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this email' button
|
Hi Liwen,
Thanks for your hardwork on this resolution (11-26/1769r3).
I have a concern with the resolution of CID 19216 (the new paragraph in 37.6.1).
The first sub-bullet prohibits a Per AID TID Info field with Ack Type equal to 0 and TID from 8 to 15.
That range also covers the pre-association ack context, where AID11 is 2045 and the Ack Type and TID subfields are set to 0 and 15 (9.3.1.8.6,
26.4.2).
Under 26.5.4.5, an AP that receives Management frames from
unassociated STAs on RA-RUs can respond with a Multi-STA BlockAck frame.
So when a non-UHR STA transmits a Management frame on an RA-RU, the AP is required to send the frame that the new paragraph prohibits.
I'd suggest excluding it from the first sub-bullet, for example:
"—
The AID11 field not equal to 2045, the Ack Type field equal to 0 and the TID field set to a value from 8 to 15, or"
Best regards,
Seongho.
---------
Original Message ---------
Sender
: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>
Date
: 2026-10-09 23:23 (GMT+9)
Title
: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] [EXT] RE: MAC PDT 11-26/1769 for subclause 9.3.1.8.6.1
Hi Tomo,
Thanks. Please find my replies below and the updated document.
Best Regards,
Liwen
|
|
|
Caution:
This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this email' button
|
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>
|
|
You don't often get email from
tomoko.adachi.b99@mail.toshiba.
Learn why this is important |
|
Caution: This
is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this email' button
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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