|
365
|
11.21.15
|
3034.26
|
One sentence forbids the AP from sending TWT Teardown for any peer-to-peer TWT schedule, while a later sentence requires the AP to send TWT Teardown on lifetime expiry (page 3035). Both cannot be true.
|
Please resolve the conflict.
|
Revised.
The two sentences are merged where the second sentence is added as an exception to the first sentence.
Editor to apply changes under CID 365 in 25/1891<motionedRevision>.
|
|
366
|
11.21.15
|
3036.15
|
Procedure mandates a Country element, but the frame format provides only a Country String field.
|
Please clarify
|
Revised.
Changed “Country element” to “Country String field” in relation to the Channel Usage Response frame in 11.21.15.
Editor to apply changes under CID 366 in 25/1891<motionedRevision>.
|
|
367
|
11.21.15
|
3036.50
|
Allowing a STA to apply EDCA/TPE from an unassociated AP might be unsafe if the regulatory domain differs. A mere advisory NOTE is weak.
|
Please consider strengthening the language
|
Revised.
Added a NOTE specifically for these fields in the case of differing regulatory domains.
Editor to apply changes under CID 367 in 25/1891<motionedRevision>.
|
|
368
|
11.21.15
|
3032.50
|
It is unclear how the "also for narrower/encompassing channels" rule applies when the Channel Entry encodes noncontiguous groupings.
|
Please clarify
|
Rejected.
The narrower/encompassing rule states “A Channel Entry field … shall be interpreted as a recommendation for the indicated channel, and also for all narrower channels fully encompassed by the bandwidth of the indicated channel.”. The term
“fully encompassed by” clearly excludes spectrum between noncontiguous frequency segments.
|
|
369
|
11.21.15
|
3032.50
|
Ambiguity whether the rule also applies to Usage Mode 1/4 (TDLS / BSS switch request).
|
Please clarify
|
Revised.
The rule clearly only applies to Usage Mode 0 and 2. As a bugfix, the rule should also apply to Usage Mode = 1. This is clarified as a side-effect of CID 28 wherein this text is moved to subclause specifically for modes 0/1/2 “11.21.15.2
Procedures common to a Usage Mode field equal to 0, 1 or 2 / The common procedures in this subclause pertain to Channel Usage elements with a Usage Mode field equal to 0, 1 or 2 …”
Editor: no further change required beyond the changes identified under CID 28.
|
|
370
|
11.21.15
|
3039.24
|
No rule covers individually addressed unsolicited responses to a STA that never requested channel usage.
|
Please clarify the non-AP STA's behavior.
|
Revised.
Added language for which received frames to process and how an AP populates the Dialog Token field.
Editor to apply changes under CID 370 in 25/1891<motionedRevision>.
|
|
371
|
11.21.15
|
3036.20
|
One TPE set may not be sufficient when the Channel Usage element spans channels with different local constraints. Please consider clarifying this.
|
As in comment
|
Revised
Since a client needs to meet both regulatory and local limits, it is atypical to have different local constraints (since the frequency reuse factor is typically reasonably invariant for a given deployment). Even so, it is worthwhile clarifying
that the local limit needs to be selected to span all indicated channels, and sentence for this is added. Also use this CID to clarify the specific field that needs to be set to 0 or 1 to indicate a local power constraint.
Editor to apply changes under CID 371 in 25/1891<motionedRevision>.
|
|
372
|
11.21.15
|
3033.15
|
Need to clarify what happens when a Channel Usage element carries no Channel Entry during peer-to-peer TWT establishment--does the recommendation implicitly refer to the BSS operating channel, or is the channel unconstrained?
|
Please clarify
|
Rejected.
P2P-TWT-unavailability always refers to the defined behavior where the key behavior is the AP of the client treating the client as being in PS Mode during the P2P-TWT SPs (see 11mfD1.0P3035L29-42 which is the paragraph identified by (#28.30)
in 25/1891<motionedRevision>), so this behavior always applies to the client’s BSS operating channel.
NOTE - in a request, no Channel Entry field is included a) for Usage Mode (UM)=0/1/2 if the client has no preference, or b) for UM=3 when the client reports its temporal unavailability for its P2P activity when either there is no possibility
for the channel of that P2P to be influenced by the AP or the channel is outside 802.11 channels (e.g., cellular causes 802.11 P2P-TWT-unavailability).
In a CU response, “no Channel Entry field” is only used when a) the AP has nothing to recommend or b) with UM=3 when the client listed “no Channel Entry field” too.
|
|
373
|
11.21.15
|
3036.28
|
permits a STA to use EDCA, Power Constraint, and TPE from the associated AP but does not bind that use only to the indicated channels
|
Please clarify
|
Revised.
A sentence, aligned with the commenter’s proposal, is added to address this issue. As well, the usage of TPE elements in un/trusted channel usage is elsewhere restricted to local power constraints which should be clarified here too.
Editor to apply changes under CID 373 in 25/1891<motionedRevision>.
|