Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] resolution on CID2781

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

I agree with Yunsong, the AP may not have any neighbors to report, we would second the suggestion to motion the change from “shall” to “may”.

Thanks

From: *** 802.11 TGai - Fast Initial Link Set-Up *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yangyunsong
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:33 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] resolution on CID2781
Importance: High

Hello everyone,

I understood that this morning (Tuesday) a motion has been passed in TGai including the approval of resolution of CID2781 as proposed in document 11-13-1497r4.

I apologize for raising an issue hind-sighted. In the accepted resolution text highlighted below, a “may” was changed to “shall”:

If dot11FILSActivated equal to true and if the Request element of the Probe Request includes the Reduced Neighbor Report Request element ID, the Probe Response or Beacon frame ~~may~~ shall include the Reduced Neighbor Report element if the criteria as defined in 10.1.4.3.3 are met for the included BSS. ~~A Reduced Neighbor Report element is included in the Probe Response frame for each BSS of which information is available.~~ The reported BSSs may have different primary channels to the responding STA.”

I appreciate the benefits of providing reduced neighbor report to STAs when requested. However, I think this “shall” is not correct nor re-enforceable. First, how APs are configured to recognize their neighbors or keep their neighbor’s information is implementation dependent. An AP may well be configured to ignore its neighbors. Therefore, an AP should be allowed not to report any neighbors. Secondly, when an AP truly has no neighbors, forcing the AP to include a Reduced Neighbor Report element would result a conflict with the currently format of this element as the Reduced Neighbor Report element currently contains at least one neighbor’s information (no option to report none). So, we have to allow an AP not to include the RNR element when it has no neighbor to report. This will make the “shall” not re-enforceable.

So, I believe the original “may” is the correct wording here. I am not able to attend TGai PM2 session today as there is a TGaq session in parallel. If it helps, I would like make a motion here to change the “shall” back to “may”.

Thank you.

Yunsong Yang

Huawei Device USA Inc.

10180 Telesis Court, STE 165

San Diego, CA 92121

Phone: +1-858-754-3638

_______________________________________________________________________________

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.

SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAI and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________

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.