| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Mark, I feel some disorder.
According the Carol’s explanation, I need some update on the editor’s instruction in my contribution. But Graham and Kurt would like to re-write this section, if so, seems nothing
to do on my side. What about keeping current editor’s instruction and Graham can address it in his later contribution? Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I worked with Kurt to re-write this section., splitting into first time association and subsequent associations. Hence it is a major re-write, I think it would be prudent to see
what the re-write is and then make changes to that. Kurt, when will you post? Graham
From: Carol Ansley <carol@xxxxxxxxxx>
As editor, I would always rather be able to work from specific instructions in the CID response than to try to find items discussed by email. Regards, Carol From:
Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Mark, I’m fine with your proposal. Need I update such proposal to the new revision and then we can have a quick talk on it during the motion? Or the editor can handle with it? Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From:
mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Jay, Thank you for checking these. I agree with you, I missed that we now have 4 paragraphs replacing the one big one in 12.2.11. Good catch. Further, now that I look at this again, I would suggest we put your new sentence as the first sentence (and paragraph) of those four. So we first introduce that a non-AP STA may
reuse the identifier by sending to the AP, and then we break out the three ways that is done for the different situations. What do you think? Mark From: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mark, I have checked the proposed change in the latest spreadsheet, I guess there is an editorial issue when I read the following Editor’s instruction. The last sentences covers the above three cases(FILS, FT, and "other cases"), which is already agreed by the group in the last plenary meeting. And thus the proposed change(last sentence) shall
be put in a separated paragraph, right? If so, we need update the editor’s instruction to say “Note to Editor: This includes replacing the last sentence
in a separated paragraph, and also breaking the text into three paragraphs (for FILS, FT, and "other cases").” @Carol, What’s your opinion? The resolution on other CIDs are correct.
Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
All, I have updated and cleaned up the CC41 comment resolution spreadsheet, here:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0973-06-00bh-cc41-comments-against-d0-2.xlsx
A few notes, including ones that need to be checked/confirmed by the group:
The above can be quickly double-checked on the next teleconference. Thanks, all. This is progress! Mark To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 |