| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello Robert, Laurent and Abhi, Robert, thanks for your response and the provided story. After checking these two passed CR document again, I found the corresponding modification
in 19/1150r3 (Abhi) is about wording, and 19/1699r1(Laurent) is a technical change because it proposed to move the place of Co-Located AP subfield and slightly change its meaning. So I think we should change it mainly according to the resolution in 19/1699r1.
Please correct me if I am not right. Next what should we do? Revise it based on this discussion and the passed CR documents or need a new CR document to amend it? Best wishes Ming Gan 发件人: Stacey, Robert [mailto:robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx]
Hello Ming, Sorry for the late response. I dug into this a little more: In September 2019, we passed the following motion 131: Move to accept text changes in doc 11-19/1699r1 Move: Laurent Cariou Second: Bin Tian Approved with unanimous consnet In 19/1699r1 there was an instruction to delete the sentence: The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field is co-located with the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise, or if
the information is unknown. And add the sentence: The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if the reported AP is in the co-located AP set of the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise. There was also a resolution to #21288 approved in 19/1150r3 that changed the original text to: P164L56:
The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field
is in the same co-located
AP set as the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise, or if the information is unknown. I believe I resolved the conflict by as follows (assuming that the intent of M131 was to move the sentence rather than modify it): The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field is in the same colocated AP set as the transmitting AP(#21288).
It is set to 0 otherwise.(M131) (this was the text I sent for review) After review I we ended up with (in D5.0): The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if the reported AP is in the same co-located AP set as the transmitting AP. It is set to 0 otherwise. Meaning we took the M131 text over the #21288 text. I don’t actually have a record of why it changed “reported AP” to “every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field”. What is likely is that somebody reported it
as an editing error (citing #21288) and I corrected it based on that but did not remember the conflict. So it seems the changes originate with conflicting motions around the time D5.0 was produced. -Robert From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Ganming (Ming) Resend it. Hope you could receive this email. 发件人: Ganming (Ming)
Hello Robert, In ax D6.0, it has the following sentence in Page 173 Line10 The Co-Located AP subfield is set to 1 if every AP in this Neighbor AP Information field is in the same co-located AP set as the transmitting AP. Is that “every AP”, not “the reported AP”? I remembered it was “the reported AP” in ax draft 5.0 because we moved the Co-Located AP subfield into the BSS Parameters subfield from TBTT Information
Header subfield. And also I could not find which document made this change by tracking “Comments on D5.0” data sheet. Best wishes Ming Gan To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1 |