| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---
Hi Yujin, Thanks for confirming. I’ll release 1208 and rename 1296. Regarding I did check that you weren’t using numbers for managed objects without allocation In doing the ANA check, I check two things.
For point 2, for example, I check that the draft was not using Element IDs that had not been allocated. In the past we had some issues were a draft used a number without allocation from ANA. Sometimes the editor (or submission author) are
not aware that a particular number space is ANA administered. -Robert From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-editors List *** <STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Yujin Noh --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---
Hi Robert, Thank you very much for your correction. I double-checked and compared the modification from both MDR report and 22/33r2. As you commented, Transaction ID 1208 should be released because it is assigned with value 126 Transaction ID 1296 for dot11NGVActived should be dot11VirtualCSonOCBSecondaryImplemented based on 22/17r1. (attached)
By the way I can’t follow the last comment
yellow-highlighted as below. It looks like all your ANA allocations are for the MIB so once we fix these problems the ANA review is complete. (I did check that you weren’t using numbers for managed objects without
allocation) Would you please clarity a little bit that I am not using numbers for managed objects without allocation? Thank you. Regards, Yujin From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
**BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’. Hello Yujin, I was reviewing the ANA consistency with the draft and I saw some inconsistencies with the MIB in D3.0 and the requests below. Here are all the allocations made to TGbd:
We now have dot11NGVComplianceGroup allocated under dot11Compliances and under dot11Groups. The second allocation (from dot11Groups) is correct based on the CR in 11-22/033r2 so I think the first allocation (from dot11Compliances) should be released. dot11NGVActivated is allocated for twice. From what I can understand, I think one of these allocations should be for the object dot11VirtualCSonOCBSecondaryImplemented. Choose which is which and let me know. Or let me know what to do with
the extra one. It looks like all your ANA allocations are for the MIB so once we fix these problems the ANA review is complete. (I did check that you weren’t using numbers for managed objects without allocation) -Robert From: Stacey, Robert Hello Yujin, Here are your allocations:
Note: The request values for dot11NONNGVRadioEnvironmentSupported and dot11StationMeasurementPeriod are already taken by 11bc. You have two requests for dot11PhyNGVComplianceGroup. I think (based on the names) that what I have allocated is correct. -Robert From: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Robert, Thank you very much to arrange and review the 11bd MDR during the editor’s meeting. As discussed, I would like to request the ANA allocation as below.
I am not sure whether this is the proper request form for ANA allocation, please let me know if something I need to provide more. Regards, Yujin From: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
**BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’. Apologies Yujin, We did clash on revisions and I do see an r4. It looks like you latest has everything except a few minor issues, so we will review using that as the baseline. -Robert From: Yujin Noh <Yujin.Noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hello All, I was drafting the MRD report r2 based on the feedback from Peter, Yongho, Edward, and Carol Ansley. Now r2 has been updated by Robert, I just uploaded it with r3 which including initial TGbd editor’s response. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0021-03-0000-tgbd-mdr-report.docx I will be back with r4 after checking the Emily’s comments if time allows. Regards, Yujin From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-editors List *** <STDS-802-11-EDITORS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Stacey, Robert **BE CAUTIOUS**
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE SENSCOMM. DO
NOT CLICK ANY LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS UNLESS YOU RECONGNIZE THE SENDER AND KNOW THE CONTENTS ARE SAFE. ALSO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN ‘REPLYING TO ALL’. --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---
Hello All, I uploaded r2 of the report:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0021-02-0000-tgbd-mdr-report.docx This revision has the findings from Peter, Emily and Edward. Regards, -Robert To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-EDITORS list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-EDITORS&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-EDITORS list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-EDITORS&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-EDITORS list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-EDITORS&A=1 |