| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Yingqiao and Ming, I will do a global change in D1.3. Then pay attention when I roll-in Ming’s doc in the next revision. regards 于健 Ross Jian Yu Huawei Technologies 发件人: Ganming(Ming Gan) <ming.gan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Yingqiao, thanks for catching those inconsistency. Maybe editor Ross could do global change for it. By the way, the fig. for Mode Specific Parameters for NPCA field in the UHR Parameters Update element is removed because of duplication 发件人:
全映桥 (Yingqiao Quan) <yingqiao.quan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Ming, Ross and all, During the Joint Conf. Call in Jan. 29 (10:00?12:00 ET), Ming presented document 26/0020 ,which included adding
“ing” after “switch” for
“NPCA Switch Delay” and
“NPCA Switch Back Delay” fields in the NPCA Operation Parameters field within the UHR Operation element. However, I noticed that the Mode Specific Parameters for NPCA field in the UHR Parameters Update element and the UHR Mode Change element still uses "NPCA switch (back) delay" without the "-ing"
suffix. Moreover, due to the previous naming convention, Clause 37 currently uses a mix of terms:
“NPCA switching delay” and
“NPCA switch back delay.” To ensure clarity and uniformity across the draft, should we align all instances to use (or not use) the
“-ing” form? Or has there been an offline discussion I may have missed regarding the preferred naming convention?
I did a global search in D1.2 by using "NPCA switch" as the keyword, hoping it will be helpful to our editor.
BR, Yingqiao Quan Communication Standards Devision
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 |