|
CID
|
Commenter
|
LB
|
Draft
|
Clause Number(C)
|
Page(C)
|
Line(C)
|
Type of Comment
|
Part of No Vote
|
Page
|
Line
|
Clause
|
Duplicate of CID
|
Resn Status
|
Assignee
|
Submission
|
Motion Number
|
Comment
|
Proposed Change
|
|
3321
|
Ganesh Venkatesan
|
249
|
2
|
6.3.53.2.3.
|
32
|
19
|
T
|
N
|
32.00
|
19
|
6.3.53.2.3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A consistent format should be used to refer to the subvariants of the Trigger Frames of Ranging variant. While one could consider this as specification aesthetic, consistency renders the specification easy to read,
comprehend and implement.
|
Use the term {Polling|Sounding|Secure Sounding| Report|Passive TB Sounding} subvariant of the Ranging Trigger Frame when referring to the Polling, Sounding, Secure Sounding, Report[ing] and Passive TB Sounding
subvariants, in the entire draft.
|
|
3322
|
Ganesh Venkatesan
|
249
|
2
|
6.3.56.3.1
|
33
|
21
|
T
|
N
|
33.00
|
21
|
6.3.56.3.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contradiction between the text in 6.3.56.3.1 which states that the confirm primitive indicates that the TB or non-TB ranging measurement successfully completed with the peer while 6.3.56.3.3 states that only the
sounding exchange (sic) corresponding to the underlying measurement exchange has successfully completed (implies that the reporting phase is still pending). The text in 6.3.56.3.3 is correct (however the use of sounding exchange here is incorrect).
|
Update the text in 6.3.56.3.1 to be consistent with the statements made corresponding to TB and non-TB Measurement Exchange(s) in Cl. 6.3.56.3.3.
|
|
3341
|
Gurkan Cepni
|
249
|
2
|
Abstract
|
3
|
4
|
T
|
N
|
3.00
|
4
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
|
"higher accuracy executing on the same PHY-type" : Higher accuracy compared to what? What's the baseline? What are the methods to have better accuracy? This is a bit vague statement.
|
1) Provide the baseline reference. 2) Include info what are the methods to have higher accuracy.
|
|
3365
|
Jonathan Segev
|
249
|
2
|
6.3.38
|
35
|
19
|
T
|
N
|
35.00
|
19
|
6.3.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible that multiple outstanding service requests exists for FTM service from upper layer, the STA needs to aggregate and generate a single service request to its peer.
|
Add MLME SAP support to enable a STA to aggregate multiple service request and generate a single FTM session to RSTA
|
|
3451
|
Mark Hamilton
|
249
|
2
|
6.3.56.1
|
28
|
3
|
T
|
Y
|
28.00
|
3
|
6.3.56.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rename 6-17b and 6-17c to not include timestamp capture, since that is not done in this exchange (it's done on the NDP exchange).
|
Delete "and timestamps capture" from the titles of Figure 6-17b and Figure 6-17c.
|
|
3455
|
Mark Hamilton
|
249
|
2
|
C.3
|
230
|
38
|
T
|
Y
|
230.00
|
38
|
C.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIB attributes with the name "Policy" (or, correctly, "PolicyActive") are to be used for non-signalled settings by an external policy control, per 11-15/0355. The attribute "dot11ISTA2RSTALMRFeedbackPolicy" appears
to be a typical "Activated" type of attribute.
|
Rename "dot11ISTA2RSTALMRFeedbackPolicy" to "dot11ISTA2RSTALMRFeedbackActivated".
|
|
3456
|
Mark Hamilton
|
249
|
2
|
C.3
|
231
|
8
|
T
|
Y
|
231.00
|
8
|
C.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
The MIB attribute "dot11NonTriggerBasedRangingImplemented" is never used in body text. From the description, it appears to be an "...Activated" type of attribute, and should be renamed. But, without any description
of usage, it's hard to tell. If there is no description of usage needed, then just delete it. Same thing for "dot11TriggerBasedRangingImplemented".
|
Delete "dot11NonTriggerBasedRangingImplemented" and "dot11TriggerBasedRangingImplemented" MIB attributes.
|
|
3457
|
Mark Hamilton
|
249
|
2
|
C.3
|
231
|
23
|
T
|
Y
|
231.00
|
23
|
C.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
The MIB atrribute "dot11LOSassessmentTXImplemented" is read-only, abut described as a control variable. Either make it read-write, or change it to a capability variable (and leave as read-only), or change to an
"...Activated" type attribute, and indicate the entity that writes to it.
|
As in comment.
|
|
3458
|
Mark Hamilton
|
249
|
2
|
6.3.56.2.2
|
31
|
|
T
|
N
|
31.00
|
|
6.3.56.2.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is confusing that the new 5th column also applies to Passive Ranging, assuming the reader noticed the statement buried in clause 11.22.6.1.3.
|
Add "Passive Location" to the 5th column heading, to be: "Applies to non-TB, TB, or Passive Location Ranging?" Also include "Passive Location" in the text explaination in 6.3.56.2.1. Same thing in 6.3.56.3 subclauses.
|
|
3482
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
3.4
|
21
|
14
|
T
|
Y
|
21.00
|
14
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
"non-TB" does not need to be defined; its meaning is obvious
|
Delete the "non-TB" line
|
|
3507
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
10.23.2.2
|
100
|
10
|
T
|
Y
|
100.00
|
10
|
10.23.2.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think bullet f) should be added. Bullet e) is there to give a special case of handling tx failure in the middle of a TXOP (the NOTE gives other options) but this new bullet f) is just standard ending of
a TXOP, and hence is covered by other text
|
Do not insert the proposed f)
|
|
3614
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
C.3
|
|
|
T
|
Y
|
|
|
C.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two definitions of dot11ISTA2RSTALMRFeedbackPolicy!
|
Delete the first
|
|
3615
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
C.3
|
|
|
T
|
Y
|
|
|
C.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two definitions of dot11ISTA2RSTALMRFeedbackPolicy!
|
Delete the second
|
|
3643
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
11.22.6.3.6
|
126
|
25
|
T
|
Y
|
126.00
|
25
|
11.22.6.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why can't I request all four things, for example?
|
Add a row with Y in each cell
|
|
3850
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
9.4.2.21.10
|
55
|
28
|
T
|
Y
|
55.00
|
28
|
9.4.2.21.10
|
|
|
|
|
|
" the Number of Antenna subfield" -- no such subfield
|
Change to " the Number of Selected Antennas subfield"
|
|
3851
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
9.4.2.21.10
|
55
|
28
|
T
|
Y
|
55.00
|
28
|
9.4.2.21.10
|
|
|
|
|
|
"indicates N Tx_sel" -- N Tx_sel is not used anwyhere
|
Delete "N Tx_sel,"
|
|
3852
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
9.4.2.21.10
|
55
|
28
|
T
|
Y
|
55.00
|
28
|
9.4.2.21.10
|
|
|
|
|
|
"indicates N Tx_sel" -- the encoding is not clear (without further clarification it would only be able to encode 0 to 3 antennas)
|
Change "the total number of the antennas selected for transmission" to "the total number of antennas selected for transmission minus one"
|
|
3864
|
Mark RISON
|
249
|
2
|
26.5.2.5
|
196
|
20
|
T
|
Y
|
196.00
|
20
|
26.5.2.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
"unless 20
one of the following conditions is met:." -- suggests if both met then doesn't apply. Also spurious full stop
|
Change to "if none of the following conditions is met:"
|
|
3898
|
Qi Wang
|
249
|
2
|
9.4.2.26
|
58
|
1
|
T
|
Y
|
58.00
|
1
|
9.4.2.26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 9-153, the note for the entry "AoA Measurements Available" does not link this entry to a STA capable of the TB or NTB operation, although the entry is only applicable to a STA that supports TB or NTB ranging.
|
Modify the note so that the entry is only applicable to a STA that supports TB or NTB ranging.
|
|
3899
|
Qi Wang
|
249
|
2
|
9.4.2.26
|
58
|
1
|
T
|
Y
|
58.00
|
1
|
9.4.2.26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 9-153, the note for the entry "Phase Shift Feedback Support" does not link this entry to a STA capable of the TB or NTB operation, although the entry is only applicable to a STA that supports TB or NTB ranging.
|
Modify the note so that the entry is only applicable to a STA that supports TB or NTB ranging.
|
|
3990
|
Tomoko Adachi
|
249
|
2
|
6.3.56.1
|
28
|
18
|
T
|
Y
|
28.00
|
18
|
6.3.56.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 6-16 in the baseline shows the frame exchange including the antenna level. Figures 6-17b and 6-17c should also be described in that level for clarity.
|
As in comment.
|