Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
[Restricting to
TGm reflector to avoid spamming the world.] The group came-up with the following text for the receive side [second sentence on line 36 page 574]: "Upon reception of a reserved value in a field or subfield, the behavior is undefined." However, there is a debate on whether or not we need to specify anything for the receive side. For instance, there are occasions where the behavior at the receiver is clearly defined (i.e.,
to ignore the reserved value) and therefore, it is incorrect to say the receive side behavior is undefined. Personally, I feel, we should delete the sentence and leave the behavioral aspects to the pertinent clauses (which is already the case at several instances
in the spec). I do think we need to make it clear that using reserved values in non-reserved fields will in general have unpredictable effects. Note that the scope of all this is just Clause 9, so anything in say Clause 12 about needing to ignore reserved values is not affected.
However, we could make this clear like this: "Upon reception of a reserved value in a field or subfield, the behavior is, unless otherwise specified, undefined." [What are examples of "the behavior at the receiver is clearly defined (i.e., to ignore the reserved value)"? Are there any outside Clause 12?] Thanks, Mark --
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600 Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601 ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk From: Abhishek
Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi All, Thank you for the discussion during today's REVme call. We made some more progress on the topic but could not reach consensus on a mutually agreeable text. After a few iterations between different members, the group seemed to have stabilized on the following text for the transmit side [replacement to line 36 page 574 in REVme D2.0]:
"In a field or subfield, values that are reserved for that field or subfield are not used for transmission."
The group came-up with the following text for the receive side [second sentence on line 36 page 574]: "Upon reception of a reserved value in a field or subfield, the behavior is undefined." However, there is a debate on whether or not we need to specify anything for the receive side. For instance, there are occasions where the behavior at the receiver is clearly defined (i.e.,
to ignore the reserved value) and therefore, it is incorrect to say the receive side behavior is undefined. Personally, I feel, we should delete the sentence and leave the behavioral aspects to the pertinent clauses (which is already the case at several instances
in the spec). I'd like to hear if there any further suggestions for the text on the transmit side and opinions on deleting the text for the receive side. Regards, Abhi From: Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx>
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Abhi, thanks. I think your
proposed text is good. Kind regards Stephen On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 04:16, Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 |