[STDS-802-11-EDITORS] Comments on reuse of an existing subfield in TGaj

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

Hello All,

TGaj received 3 CIDs regarding the use of some of existing subfields, which need .11 editors’ help to resolve. Other amendments might encounter the similar issue in the past or future.

If I understand correctly, usually it is better not to use duplicated field names for different STAs, such as HT STAs, VHT STAs, DMG STAs, etc. But I am not sure it would be a problem to reuse an existing subfield for a newly defined STAs. Currently, there are a number of subfields used for two or more kinds of STAs in the 802.11 spec.

Maybe there are two cases if 802.11 editors believe it really would be a problem:

Case 1: The name and definition/meaning of a subfield in a newly defined field are exactly as the same as those of an existing subfield.

For this case, as the commenter’s suggestion, we can refer to the existing subfield by saying like “The MRQ subfield is defined in 9.2.4.6.2” rather than show the copied text in the new draft.

Case 2: Same subfield name but with different definition/meaning.

There might be the following options:

- Option 1: Give the new subfield a new name, for example, use “CMMW MRQ” for CMMW STAs.

- Option 2: Still use the existing name and give a new definition/meaning for newly defined STAs. Because some subfield name is very general, such as: “Nc Index” , “Nr Index”, “channel width”, “channel number”.

- Option 3: It depends to use option 1 or option 2.

Here could you kindly let me know which option is better or what is the convention in 802.11 history? Other comments or suggestions are also welcome.

Thank you,

Best Regards,

Jiamin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attached please find the relevant comments and related txt, the content is also copied here for your convenience:

CID	Clause	Page	Line	Type	Comment	Proposed Change	Remark
605	9.2.4.6a	24	10	T	You cannot have subfields in the CMMG Control field that have identical names to subfields in other fields in the standard unless these subfields are identical. This is like having ten children and naming them all Dave.	Change the names of the MRQ, MFB, MFSI CSI/Steering, RDG/More PPDU fields and any others that were copied from existing field names, UNLESS they have identical meaning, in which case, it is fine to keep the copied names, but then, instead of defining the meaning of those fields that do have the same meaning, you must instead insert a reference that says, for example, MRQ subfield is defined in 9.2.4.6.2

These subfields have the same or similar definition as those defined for HT/VHT STAs:

CID	Clause	Page	Line	Type	Comment	Proposed Change	Remark
606	9.2.4.6a	27	44	T	Your table 9-18e RDG/More PPDU is identical (with one minor difference) to an existing baseline table 9-11 RDG/More PPDU - wow! You cannot copy something completely and then have two references to the same name!	simply change the referencein the text paragraph from table 9-18e to table 9-11 and remove your table 9-18e, i.e. you should simply refer to the existing field with the same name, since the definitions are identical, unless the thing about Duration is needed, but I doubt it

The RDG/More subfield values for CMMW STAs

The RDG/More subfield values defined for HT STAs:

CID	Clause	Page	Line	Type	Comment	Proposed Change	Remark
607	9.4.1.61	33	42	T	Again, I think that you should be pointing to the existing subfields in the baseline that have the same definitions and names.	As stated in the comment. Someone should make an official enquery to the 802.11 editor in chief as to whether it is ok to reuse names like this.

Subfields of the CMMG MIMO Control field:

Subfields of the CMMG MIMO Control field for VHT STAs:

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.