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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBC] CID 2014

Xiaofei,
            I think this is a good approach. As also mentioned in the discussion, if a failure is indicated, then perhaps another mechanism or other frame can indicate a specific status code (either an existing one or a new one).

Kind regards

Stephen

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 23:28, Xiaofei Wang <Xiaofei.Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear all,

 

For CID 2014 (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-2016-05-00bc-proposed-comment-resolutions-for-two-cds-clause-9-4-1-69-lb257.docx), we had a discussion whether we should use standard status code field or use fewer bits.

 

After the discussion and some thinking, maybe two values are sufficient (0 for success, and 1 for failure).  So we can just use one bit in the Control field to indicate the results. This way, we provide enough information for the negotiation procedure and just use one bit (hence no overhead whatsoever).

 

Please let me know of your thoughts.

 

 

Best regards,

Xiaofei Clement Wang

Principal Engineer | InterDigital

T: (631) 622.4028

E: Xiaofei.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

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