Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hello Emily, See my responses below:
1022: updated. 1162: updated. 1163, 1164, 1165, 1222: since they are overlapping with EDITOR2 comments. I will add a note to each of those comments:
Note to Editor: there might be multiple instances. 1490: updated 1588: I think we may need more discussion on this one. I will pull it out.
1591: updated. 1086: I can pull out this one from the MOTION if you would like to have more discussion.
OK, thanks. 1115: added: at 700.53 change “an null data packet (NDP) announcement” to “an HT NDP announcement”.
changed “889.6” to “889.61”.
1280: SCs in 12.5.3.3 and 12.5.3.4.3 and 12.5.4.3 are “sequence control”. SC is also used for “MPDU Sequence Control field”. Mark H will work on cleaning up “Sequence Control (SC)” that was added
by 11ah. However, those work items are out of the scope of this comment. 1389: Please see the discussion in 18/0658r4 OK. It just says "Disagree to change “when” to “if”."
Why do you disagree? If there's no good reason, I think the commenter's proposed change should simply be accepted. 1433: This is the consensus from the April ad hoc meeting. If you disagree, I will pull out this comment from the group motion. We can have a separate motion on this.
For now, I just want a resolution that does not contain obviously false statements like "U[n]derscores are used for ResultCode everywhere". 1487: This is the consensus from the telecom. If you disagree, I will pull out this comment from the group motion. We can have a separate motion on this. That was not my understanding of what the consensus from the teleconf was, assuming you mean the one on 2018-04-27. My understanding of the consensus was that we should NOT have definitions for $PHY AP, $PHY BSS, etc., unless there was something specific that meant the definition was needed to resolve an ambiguity. In turn, there was no ambiguity related to "DMG AP", so that definition was going to be deleted, and the other Mark had a recollection there was some ambiguity related to "DMG BSS" that required its definition (something to do with whether a PBSS is a DMG BSS (even though the definition does not mention PBSSes)) so was going to do some research and report back to see if the continued inclusion of a "DMG BSS" definition was warranted. 1518: This is the consensus from the telecom. If you disagree, I will pull out this comment from the group motion. We can have a separate motion on this.
That may have been the consensus, but the point is that if CID 1518 is rejected, then CID 1188 must be too, for the same reason. Dorothy was going to check the status of CID 1188 to make sure. Thanks, Mark Note: Pursuant to the notice at the end of this email, this email is addressed to everyone involved in 802.11 work, and does not contain protected information. Full dissemination, distribution, copying and use is authorised. --
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600 Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601 ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk From: Mark Rison [mailto:m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Thanks for these, Emily. I have the following comments on the EDITOR-A tab:
I have the following comments on the EDITOR-B tab:
Thanks, Mark --
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600 Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601 ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk From: ***** 802.11 REVm - Revision Maintainance List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Qi, Emily H --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hello All I have uploaded an updated REVmd EDITOR ad hoc comment spreadsheet:
Tab “Motion-EDITOR-A” includes proposed comment resolutions for “trivial” editor comments in the “EDITOR” ad hoc. Tab “Motion-EDITOR-B” includes proposed comment resolutions for “non-trivial” editor comments in the “EDITOR” ad hoc. Those comments were discussed in the April ad hoc and teleconference.
Tab “Motion-EDITOR-A” and Tab “Motion-EDITOR-B” will be considered for MOTION at the Warsaw meeting.
Please review and let me know if you have any other suggestions.
Regards, Emily Qi To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 |