Re motion 90, I have the following comments on the proposed resolution for CID 1237:
1) "the current value of EBCS Info sequence number" is not using a
defined term (I don't think we have any text defining "EBCS Info sequence
number")
2) "the current value of EBCS Info sequence number" is missing an
article (just before "EBCS")
3) This resolution is asking for all of 21/0084r0 to be incorporated
into the draft to resolve 1237, but 21/0084r0 is mostly about other
comments
4)
Replace "the current value of dot11eBCSInfoSequence" with "the current value of EBCS Info sequence number"
duplicates
Editor to incorporate changes in
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0084-00-00bc-resolutions-for-clause-9-6-7-101.docx :
[This last one is doubly bad because only the resolution mentions deletion
of the MIB attribute, so if the Editor just looks at 21/0084r0 for the changes,
she'll miss the deletion.
Duplication bad!]
I think the resolution to CID 1237 should be more like (taking the wording
from
6.3.200.3.2 Semantics of the service primitive):
REVISED
At the referenced location, change "the current value of dot11eBCSInfoSequence" to "the sequence number of the eBCS Info frame".
Remove dot11eBCSInfoSequence from Annex C.
In 11.100.2.5 eBCS Info frame defragmentation change
"the
eBCS Info Sequence Number, Timestamp, the Fragment Control and the Fragment Hash values" to "the EBCS Info frame Sequence Number, Timestamp, EBCS Info Control and Fragment Hash Values field values"
"fragmentation number in the Fragment Control field" to "Fragment Index subfield in the EBCS Info Control field"
"When an eBCS non-AP STA receives an
eBCS Info frame with the Fragmentation Number in the Fragment Control not set to 0 and the Fragmentation Index set to 0" to "When an
eBCS non-AP STA receives an eBCS Info frame with the Number Of Fragments subfield in the EBCS Info Control field not set to 0 and the Fragment Index subfield set to 0"
[Actually I'm not sure about the one in bold.
The fragment index of
all the fragments will be different, by definition!
What is
"fragmentation number in the Fragment Control field" referring to?]
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From:
** STDS-802-11-TGbc -- Enhanced Broadcast Service ** <STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Marc Emmelmann
Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2021 20:40
To: STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBC] TGbc Motion Request for Telco on Feb 9th
Dear Dorothy,
I would like to request permission to run motions to approve agreed comment resolutions of previously discussed
CIDs.
The
motions are numbered #89, #90, and #91 (slides 4-6) and are contained in
We would like to run the motions during the February, 9th, TGbc telco.
Kind regards,
Marc
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBC&A=1