| Hi Christian,
On CID-1389:
1389
|
25.34
|
9.3.1.19
|
Note is unncessary, the behavior
described in the note does not belong in section 9, but in section 11
|
Remove note
|
Accepted
|
Instead of removing the note, I think it should be moved from 9.3.1.9 to clause 11.22.6.3.3 (page 88 of 11az_D1.0) where the same topic is addressed. Currently, in 11.22.6.3.3, there is text specifying Max UL Rep, Max DL Rep (included in the negotiation frames), RSTA Assigned DL Rep, and RSTA Assigned UL Rep, but there is no text describing the link between these parameters with the “UL Rep” and “DL Rep” of the NDPA frame.
Regards, Qi
Hello Jonathan, I have uploaded document “Comment Resolution LB240 – Section 9.3.1.19” to mentor under DCN 662. I’d like to present it either in the next Telecom or the Ad-hoc face-to-face meeting. Christian External Email
Hello Jonathan: I have posted document 19/466r0 to Mentor and would like agenda time in the next TGaz teleconference (Apr 24th) to discuss it. This submission will resolve CIDs: 1026, 1099, 1235, 1883, 1923, 2223, 2235, 2253, 2335, 2339, 2451 and 1593 Cheers -- ganesh
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAZ list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAZ&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAZ list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAZ&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAZ list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAZ&A=1
|