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

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

Hello Po-Kai,

Thanks for your responses. My responses with [MR1] below.

CID	Commenter	Page	Clause	Comment	Proposed Change	Resolution	mgr comment	Response to the 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	There is no change made. The proposed change is already there in D1.1 as described in the resolution. Do you want me to use reject? *[MR1] The comments are against D1.0 so the resolutions need to be against D1.0 too*
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	There is no change made. The proposed change is already there in D1.1 as described in the resolution. Do you want me to use reject? *[MR1] The comments are against D1.0 so the resolutions need to be against D1.0 too*
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?	It is not accepted because this is a software issue about the reference page of table of content. If you check table content you will see that every clause with title too long that goes to the next line will have this issue. Once we fix the reference page, it will take care all instances and not just this instance. [MR1] Is the identified problem going to be fixed and result in the change requested by the commenter? If so, then it should be marked ACCEPTED. The technical details of how the fix is achieved are not the commenter's problem, nor indeed of anyone else reviewing/voting on the comment resolution
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?	For the second half, if you look very carefully, the difference is “for whitch the Multi-STA BlockAck frame is sent.” Vs “for which this BlockAck frame is sent.” The second one is the style used in other clause. For example, see 9.3.1.8.3 *[MR1] I see. Would be worth stating this to the commenter. But anyway, why is the first half being added?*
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	I think it mentions we add “NOTE-” to all description below definitions? [MR1] You mean that whenever there is a para below a definition, that does not start with some text in bold followed by a colon, this is being changed to a NOTE—? If so, you should say that (rather than the vague "if missing")
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	OK. I will use revise.
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	It does not specify the change because it is already fixed in 11bk-2025 as described in the resolution, which me and Edward are rolled in and will appear in D1.2. *[MR1] The comments are against D1.0 so the resolutions need to be against D1.0 too*
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	OK. I will say add a note “NOTE—The MCS Difference field is set to an unsigned value.” This the resolution similar to your another comment on unsigned integer. *[MR1] OK, I object to that because 9.2.2 already says that "Unless specified otherwise, a number in a field is encoded as an unsigned integer."*
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"	OK. Will change this. *[MR1] However, I think the point of the comment has been missed. It should be to change from* *Reference to "a BlockAck" frame* to *Reference to a "BlockAck 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	OK. I will say change "authentication frames" in the cited texts. Disagree on the comma. If you want, I can pull this out for discussion. [MR1] It should be "Authentication frame"[s] not "authentication frame"[s]. You just need to identify where you are making the changes. As for the comma, OK, let's discuss this in the next meeting
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	Obviously, the person who proposed this at the beginning think there is a value. I remembered this is added due to some comments, which is the reason why I try to keep it. If you want, I can pull this out for discussion. *[MR1] OK, let's discuss this in the next meeting*
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	The difference is that the proposal is “Note:” rather than “Note-”. Agree to capitalize NOTE. I will change that. For the NOTE, I do not see why reference is not justified. I have seen cases using a NOTE or without using a NOTE for reference. I am fine either way. *[MR1] That's borderline: it's telling you how to determine channel starting frequencies, so there's perhaps some justification.* [MR1] This one seems spurious to me, indeed, and I would delete it. I think there has to be a good reason to give cross-references from Clause 3 to other clauses, especially since AIUI this goes into some aggregated dictionary, where "See 34.2" won't make any sense

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