Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Proposed resolutions for 40 ED1 comments posted



--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Thanks, Po-Kai.  Here are the resolutions on which I have comments:

 

CID

Commenter

Page

Clause

Comment

Proposed Change

Resolution

mgr comment

2

Rojan Chitrakar

115.01

LOT

Is there a need to introduce an acronym LOT just for one instance?

Replace LOT with List of Tables.

REVISED
This is already addressed in D1.1.

The resolution does not specify the actual changes made

3

Rojan Chitrakar

151.01

LOF

Is there a need to introduce an acronym LOF just for one instance?

Replace LOF with List of Figures.

REVISED
This is already addressed in D1.1.

The resolution does not specify the actual changes made

49

Youhan Kim

100.18

Contents

"field5380" should be "field     5380"

Change "field5380" to "field     5380"

REVISED
This is related to the reference page setting of framemaker. Editor to use the reference page format that can provide .... page number even when the title is too long.

Why is this not ACCEPTED?  What does the resolution mean?  What change is being proposed instead?

220

Haorui Yang

757.33

9.3.1.8.6

Encoding of Block Ack Starting Sequence Control field and Block Ack Bitmap field are missing.

Add the below to the end of the paragraph:
The Block Ack Starting Sequence Control subfield is shown in Figure 9-49 (Block Ack Starting Sequence Control subfield format). The Starting Sequence Number subfield of the Block Ack Starting Sequence Control subfield contains the sequence number of the first MSDU or A-MSDU for whitch the Multi-STA BlockAck frame is sent. The Fragment Number subfield of the Block Ack Starting Sequence Control subfield is set as defined in Table 9-40 (Fragment Number subfield encoding for the Multi-STA BlockAck variant).

REVISED
Add at the end of paragraph at 752.33. "If the AID11 subfield of the AID TID Info subfield is not 2045, 2009, or 2047,(#M7) then the Per AID TID Info subfield has the format shown in Figure 9-66 (Per AID TID Info subfield format if the AID11 subfield is not 2045, 2009, or 2047(#M7)(#11be)). The Block Ack Starting Sequence Control subfield is shown in Figure 9-54 (Block Ack Starting Sequence Control subfield format). The Starting Sequence Number subfield of the Block Ack Starting Sequence Control subfield contains the sequence number of the first MSDU or A-MSDU for which this BlockAck frame is sent. The Fragment Number subfield of the Block Ack Starting Sequence Control subfield is set as defined in Table 9-44 (Fragment Number subfield encoding for the Multi-STA BlockAck variant)."

Is the second half of the proposed resolution the same as the proposed change?  What is the reason for the extra material?

226

Haorui Yang

231.04

3.1

"NOTE-" is missing.

Add "NOTE-"

REVISED
Add back "NOTE-" to all the descriptions below definitions in 3.1 if missing.

The resolution does not specify the actual changes made

256

Ryunosuke Sakamoto

661.13

8.3.5.15.2

There is a typo. "data" is mistakenly written as "date."

correct "date" to "data."

ACCEPTED

A full stop should not be added

258

Li-Hsiang Sun

1886.20

9.6.7.33

First several octets in Figure 9-1335 are missing

add first 16 octets back to the figure

REVISED
This is updated by 11bk-2025.

The resolution does not specify the actual changes made

468

Mark RISON

2040.56

9.6.27.2

"is set to an unsigned value that represents the MCS difference" -- per 9.2.2 it's unsigned by default

Delete "is set to an unsigned value that"

REVISED
We delete the cited texts, but add a note.

The resolution does not specify the actual changes made

475

Mark RISON

747.34

9.3.1.8.1

Reference to "a BlockAck" frame
should be
Reference to a "BlockAck frame".  Ditto 743.53

As it says in the comment

REVISED
change the instance at 747.34 as suggested by the commenter. At 743.53 change "Reference to a "a BlockAckReq" frame" to "Reference to a "BlockAckReq" frame"

The quoted text at 743.53 is incorrect: it's not "to a "a BlockAckReq" frame", it's "to "a BlockAckReq" frame"

485

Mark RISON

361.63

4.5.4.2

"without association by establishing a PTKSA using authentication frames" precedence unclear and bad case

Change to "without association, by establishing a PTKSA using Authentication frames".  Also change "authentication" to "Authentication" at 3433.48

REVISED
We change "authentication frames" to "Authentication frames".  There's no grammatical or structural need for a comma before "by", as it's tightly connected to the verb "allows" (specifically, it modifies "protection" to describe how it's achieved).

Not clear which "authentication frames" has/have been changed to "Authentication frames".  Think comma makes the sentence clearer, too

510

Mark RISON

744.63

9.3.1.7.4

"as given by TID_INFO + 1, e.g., a 2 in the TID_INFO subfield means that three TID values are present in the Multi-TID BlockAckReq frame's BAR Information field" -- readers of the 802.11 spec can safely be assumed to be able to do this simple small integer sums without help

Delete from ", e.g." to the end of the sentence

REVISED
The example is revised to be a note. "NOTE—A 2 in the TID_INFO subfield means that three TID values are present in the Multi-TID BlockAckReq frame's BAR Information field."

Don't think such a NOTE has any value, given the readership

583

Joseph Levy

270.13

3.2

The definition "restricted target wake time: [R-TWT] TWT with enhanced medium access protection and resource
reservation for delivery of latency sensitive traffic as described in 35.8 (Restricted TWT (R-TWT))." has formatting issues.

Replace the current definition with: "restricted target wake time (TWT): [R-TWT] TWT with enhanced medium access protection and resource reservation mechanisms for delivery of latency sensitive traffic.
Note: see 35.8 (Restricted TWT (R-TWT))."

REVISED
Add "(TWT)" after  "restricted target wake time". Replace " as described in 35.8 (Restricted TWT (R-TWT))." with " Note- See 35.8 (Restricted TWT (R-TWT)). "

How does this differ from the proposed change?  And Note should be NOTE.  But in any case I don't think a xref is justified, let alone a NOTE to give the xref

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

 

P.S.: Incidentally, who is "we" in the proposed resolutions?

 

--

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN   English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre       Tel: +44 1223  434600

1 Cambridge Square, Cambridge CB4 0AE   Fax: +44 1223  434601

ROYAUME UNI                             WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

 

From: Huang, Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 4 October 2025 00:41
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Proposed resolutions for 40 ED1 comments posted

 

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Dear all,

 

 

I've uploaded 25/1749r0 that contains proposed resolutions for 40 ED1 comments that are straightforward to resolve in my opinion.

 

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/25/11-25-1749-00-000m-revmf-lb289-ed1-ad-hoc-comments.xlsx


Following the practice of ED2 comments, I might not present the proposed resolution of any CID unless any of you would like to pull any CID out for further discussion.

 

Thanks in advance for the review.

 

Best,

Po-Kai


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


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