| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Mark, Thank you for your comments – I was simply pointing out the previous use of sub-field (and was not sure why it was referred to as sub-field versus just field) greatly appreciated.
As to the others I will continue thoughts and opinions on the new thread.
Sincerely, Luther From: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Luther, First, thanks for the research, and thoughts/suggestion from there. Another “gotcha” item, though, for those new(er) to IEEE 802.11: The direction from REVme is largely toward stopping with the distinction between fields and subfields. 1) Everyone gets it wrong all the time, and it’s just busy work fixing
them all the time. 2) The distinction really doesn’t matter in any practical real-world sense. 3) Which is correct is sometimes context dependent, and relies on context that may not be knowable at the point of the particular sentence being written. So, we’re giving up, and (slowly – because it’s just way too painful) getting rid of the “subfield” usage, and just saying “field” for all components of a larger protocol structure. I’ll leave the discussion about “DID” versus “Device ID [<something>]” I’ll leave to another thread. (Note that I responded to Stephen, also, already.) And, likewise, whether we need/want a distinction between “Device ID function” and “Device ID mechanism” (and what about “Device ID feature”?) I’ll leave to a separate thread. I’m not convinced there is any consistent semantic difference
between these in the current 802.11 baseline (REVme, etc.) though. Mark From: Luther Smith <000025945f3926b3-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All, After some research to how elements and fields are referred to in the base document the following is my interpretation. The element is the part of the messaging that continues information about the topic/item. In this case the length, extension, status, and value used for identifying the device, “Device ID”, thus the element is named “Device ID element”.
This is consistent with the definition of other elements. The “items” or fields within the elements that contain values seem to be referred to as “subfields” such example is within the
Link Info field of the Basic Multi-Link element “The Link ID subfield is as defined in 9.4.1.71 (Link ID Info field) and specifies a value that uniquely identifies the link where the
reported STA is operating on (see 35.3.3.2 (Link ID)).” Hence the actual value used for the Device ID should be referred to as “The Device ID subfield…”.
Since this is focused on just the ID of the device (Device ID) that using “Device” or “Device Information” this seems are more generic or broader terms and could be seen as including things such as the Device MAC address or the IRMA (using
Mark’ term) versus just the device’s ID that is used by the AP and STA. To the use of “DID”, the term is not very descriptive and could be confused with the verb “did”. That the fill use or spelling of “Device ID mechanism” defines it as a mechanism involving the Device ID. While the use of mechanism and function
seem closely related based on my evaluation, a mechanism is the action of fulfilling a function. Such as the Device ID function is preformed using the following mechanism. Thus there may be room for both Device ID function (and IRM function) to indicate that
something is being done (ie the function) and Device ID mechanism (and IRM mechanism) to define what is done or to be done to execution the function.
Respectfully submitted, Luther From: Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx>
Mark, thanks for capturing these items. It's definitely going in the right direction, although I would prefer Device ID field and Device ID element to be named differently, as these terms cause a lot of confusion when reading the text. Something like Device element or Device
Information element may work, leaving Device ID field as it is. Kind regards Stephen On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 at 18:42, Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 |