Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-MAC-NPCA

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

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the patient explanation.

I think what confused me is that the "channel occupied by the received PPDU(s)" appears twice. Maybe the second one should be removed.

IMO, the structure used in a)-c is better for the reader.

c.the 20/40/80/160 MHz channel occupied by the received PPDU(s), identified by the STA based on the channel allocations in the corresponding band and the PPDU bandwidth that is signaled in the received PPDU(s) or obtained from the RXVECTOR parameter CH_BANDWIDTH_IN_NON_HT of the received PPDU(s) and the channel occupied by the received PPDU(s), does not overlap with the NPCA primary channel

BRs,

Haorui Yang(Rae)

China Mobile

---- Replied Message ----

From	Matthew Fischer<matthew.fischer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date	12/19/2024 07:10
To	<STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-MAC-NPCA

r12 is now on the server:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/24/11-24-1762-12-00bn-pdt-mac-npca.docx

John Wullert,

Generally agree with both of your comments, r12 includes changes that generally follow the spirit of those comments.

Haorui,

1. - agree, changed to multiple BSS in r12

2. the commas in the cited item in r11 are in the correct locations

note that as long as conjunctions are used, no comma should appear as those conjunctions are adding/modifying the single, albeit long, qualifying phrase

i.e. the entire phrase beginning with "identified" and ending with "received PPDU(s)" is a single qualifying phrase referring to the subject "channel" that appears at the very beginning

the predicate for channel is "does not overlap", making everything in between is a single qualifying phrase, which must be set aside by commas

so the structure of the sentence is:

the channel, identified by some means, does not overlap something

"identified by some means" is then expanded into that big long multiply-qualifying phrase

the commas serve to separate the qualifier from the subject and the predicate

this is because the natural English order is:

adjectival phrase subject predicate object

In the cited sentence, when the order of adjectival phrase and subject is reversed, commas are used to separate the adjectival phrase

subject, adjectival phrase, predicate object

3. agree, removed "/or"

NOTE - this email has been truncated by removing quoted text from previous emails.

If you want to view the previous emails, please refer to earlier emails in the thread.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 11:01 PM Haorui Yang(Rae) <yanghaorui0217@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Math,

Thanks for your efforts on updating the draft over and over.

I have the below comments further:
1. MBSS in baseline = mesh BSS so in this PDT the MBSS should be changed to multiple BSS set, or other better wording;

2. for b)-c, the highlighted comma seems in a wrong place. Maybe it should be after "CH_BANDWIDTH_IN_NON_HT of the received PPDU(s)";
"c.the 20/40/80/160 MHz channel occupied by the received PPDU(s), identified by the STA based on the channel allocations in the corresponding band and the PPDU bandwidth that is signaled in the received PPDU(s) or obtained from the RXVECTOR parameter CH_BANDWIDTH_IN_NON_HT of the received PPDU(s) and the channel occupied by the received PPDU(s), does not overlap with the NPCA primary channel"

3. based on Motion #164, only receiving the CTS without RTS cannot trigger NPCA switch, but in current bullet b) "and/or" means 3 possible cases including the case where only the response frame is received, which seems against the Motion.
b)the STA received a PPDU containing a Control frame and/or a PPDU containing a initial response frame of a Control frame exchange on the BSS primary channel and all of the following conditions apply:

BRs,

Haorui Yang(Rae)

China Mobile

--

Matthew Fischer

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1