| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Jay, Please sync up with Mike. He has prepared a document on MAPC security, which has been shared with you. In that document, he removed the security profile from the MAPC element. However, the MAPC element contains
other subelements that may need to be fragmented if its total size exceeds 254 bytes. Therefore, removing the security profile subelement from MAPC element does not mean that we no longer need the procedure in 35.3.3.7. Regards, Abhi From: yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hi Chaoming, Good point. Following your suggestion, I will make it in 25/1860, otherwise, we need to define three levels MAPC fragments. Once it's done, I will share it to the group. But two level MAPC fragments is still needed as Per-scheme Profile may exceed 255 octets. Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang (杨志杰)
Original From: 罗朝明(ChaomingLuo)
<luochaoming@xxxxxxxx> To: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;杨志杰10343608;arik.klein@xxxxxxxxxx
<arik.klein@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 2026年02月27日
11:24 Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] LB291 - CR for 9.4.2.355 MAPC element Hi Guys, Why not take the Security Profile out of the MAPC element and put it as a new element directly in the frame body? So that we don’t bother have multiple levels of fragmentation.
BR, Chaoming From: Abhishek Patil <0000297b717f2a04-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Jay, Arik, I have a comment on this topic. Perhaps you could use that to provide guidance on the second level fragmentation (similar to MLE):
Abhi From: Jay Yang <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hi Arik, Thanks for your contribution. Regarding the following proposed text in your contribution. I don't believe it work at all. (#7797) One or more Fragment subelements are present if the contents of a subelement exceed 255 octets. The format of Fragment subelement is the same as that of Fragment element (see 9.4.2.187) except that Element
ID field is replaced with Subelement ID field. In general, we need two levels fragments, one is MPAC element level, the second level is per-scheme profile. You can refer to prepare the text following the similar design in baseline 35.3.3.7
Subelement fragmentation in the Link Info field of a Multi-Link element Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang (杨志杰)
Original From: ArikKlein <0000177967a59511-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 2026年02月23日
07:09 Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] LB291 - CR for 9.4.2.355 MAPC element Hi all / MAPC TTTs
I’ve uploaded
11-26/0410r0 (29 CIDs) on the mentor. Your review and comments are highly appreciated.
Regards, Arik
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 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 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 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 |