| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Thanks Kurt, You make a good point about the ID itself. For me I would say this is a MLME-SAP primitive as then it is easy for the SAP to provide or receive the actual ID to and from the MAC, and the upper layer App can use it.
If you or others feel it can be better done with a MIB then go for it (I am not
au fait with reading and writing MIBs). I do feel, however, that your proposal should include these items so that the audience does not have too many questions.
Thanks Graham From: Lumbatis, Kurt <kurt.lumbatis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Graham, I think you are correct and making these changes will simplify the text overall. The reason for the MIBs was due to the text in the existing Table 9 as well as the suggestion that the ‘activated’ MIB also That being said, and per your suggestion, the single MIB can be utilized in a similar way. Set on a per SSID basis and with the Thank you for your kind remarks. I’ll start making these changes both to my presentation and to the text submission. Kurt Lumbatis Distinguished Software Engineer DOCSIS CPE R&D SW Architecture (Wi-Fi) ARRIS AND RUCKUS
HAVE JOINED COMMSCOPE
3871 Lakefield Dr, Suwanee, GA 30024 USA
Office: +01-678-473-2921 From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Kurt, Thank you for all the work on your submissions 22/1218, presented today, and 22/1329. Certainly makes us think. Looking at 22/1218, the idea, as I read it, is: In the non-AP STA, we have two MIBs; one for “Device ID Implemented” and one for “Device ID Activated”.
On the first association, only if both MIBs are true does the non-AP STA indicate to the AP to allocate an ID (in msg 3). On subsequent associations, only if both MIBs are true does the non-AP STA send an ID in msg 2. A suggestion expressed at today’s meeting was that all the non-AP STA need do is set a Device ID support bit in the RSN Extension Element then the AP knows what to do or expect. Hence, the logic is simply Device ID support bit is set to
1 if both MIBs are true. The MIB settings are then set on an BSS/ESS basis. Having said that, do we really need the “Device ID Implemented” MIB? All that matters is that the Device ID support bit is set to 1 and the AP knows what to do/expect. If the non-AP STA does not support Device ID the support bit would
not be present. Hence, I am convincing myself that all we need do is to set the “support bit” on a BSS/ESS basis.
This would simplify the text in 22/1329. Plus, we need to change the text in Table 9-363 – Extended Capabilities field from
The STA sets the Device ID Support field to 1 to indicate support for Device ID indication. Otherwise, the STA sets the Device ID field to 0. To something like: If MIBxxx is true, the STA sets the Device ID Support field to 1 to indicate support for Device ID indication. Otherwise, the STA sets the Device ID field to 0.
Then in the MIBxxx description make it clear that it is set on a BSS/ESS basis.
Thanks Graham 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 |