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

[STDS-802-11-TGBH] (Minor) TGbh resolution conflict on PICS statement

All,

 

Our Editor has uncovered an issue that I caused, through both one of my comments on CC41, and in my proposed resolution to the comment.  Here’s the history:

  • Just before producing D0.2, I submitted a proposal for a bunch of miscellaneous cleanup of the Draft, including adding a PICS statement for Device ID, in 11-22/0741r2.
  • In my CC41 comments, I seem to have missed that we agreed to add the text to the PICS, and I claimed the PICS was missing in CID 62.
  • I then submitted 11-23/0461r2 to resolve CID 62.  This added (slightly different) text to the PICS.
  • So, now we have two versions of PICS material, and probably confusion by all of you (and the Editor) about which one is really intended/approved/best.

 

The options from those two documents for a row that we add (in B.4.4.1) are:

 

Item

Protocol capabilitiy

References

Status

Support

PC<ANA>

Device ID

9.4.2.296a (Device ID element),

12.2.11 (Device ID indication)

PC34:O

Yes o No o

 

OR

 

Item

Protocol Capability

References

Status

Support

PC<ANA>

Device ID

12.2.11 (Device ID indication)

CFAP OR

CFSTAofAP:

O

Yes o No o

 

 

I will note that at this point we also have the IRM feature, with its own element in clause 9 (so the subclause following 9.4.2.296a) and we have split the behavior subclause into 12.2.11.1 and 12.2.11.2.  We have not had discussion about how these should be reflected in the PICS.  Do we want one row for each of these (that is, Device ID and IRM are separate features and each is optional, separately)?

 

A separate question, is whether our feature(s) should have dependency (the Status column) on PC34 (RSNA support) and/or on the device being an AP or non-AP STA (CFAP of CFSTAofAP).  Perhaps the right answer is all of those in combination?

 

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.  I’ll formulate something to discuss on our call on Tuesday (April 25).  I anticipate we’ll need to do a quick motion update to the resolution to CID 62 to close this off.

 

Thanks.  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