Hello Mark,
As for CID 1518, you seemed to agree with the comment resolution, but wanted to make sure CID 1188 is rejected as well. The action on CID 1188 is recorded in the meeting minutes. I am sure Dorothy will take care
of it. That said, I will still include CID 1518 in the group motion (Motion-EDITOR-B) for approval.
Following CIDs have been pulled out from the group motion and will be discussed in the IEEE meeting next week: 1588, 1086, 1389, 1433, and 1487.
Regards,
Emily
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]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 7:08 AM
To: Qi, Emily H <emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: REVmd update to EDITOR ad hoc comment spreadsheet
Thanks for these, Emily. I have the following comments on the EDITOR-A tab:
|
1022 |
I find a total of 6 places in the draft |
|
1162 |
442.4 not 441.4. Also 1436.32, .54 |
|
1163 |
see other similar comment in EDITOR2-A |
|
1164 |
see other similar comment in EDITOR2-A |
|
1165 |
see other similar comment in EDITOR2-A |
|
1222 |
see other similar comment in EDITOR2-A |
|
1490 |
also 1536.16, 1537.33 |
|
1588 |
The " Move the text in the two paragraphs after Figure 9-84, to be duplicated in 11.3.5.3(k) and 11.3.5.5(k)." part of the accepted proposed change is not clear. Exactly what will 11.3.5
look like after the change? |
|
1591 |
Also 916.18, 1428.2 |
I have the following comments on the EDITOR-B tab:
|
1086 |
The problem is that now if the spec says "MAC header" it's not clear whether that excludes "PV1 MAC header" |
|
1115 |
Also 700.53. 889.6 should be 889.61 |
|
1280 |
All the references to "SC" in 12.5.3.3 and 12.5.3.4.3 and 12.5.4.3 need to go too |
|
1389 |
The proposed resolution does not address the "when" v. "if" aspect of the comment. Why not accept the proposed change? |
|
1433 |
The rejection reason "Uderscores are used for ResultCode everywhere." is broken. A counter-example is given in the comment: "AUTH FAILURE TIMEOUT" |
|
1487 |
No, CID 204 said we do need a definition for <PHY> BSS and <PHY> AP, such as those provided for DMG BSS and DMG AP. So the proposed definition for HT AP needs to be added |
|
1518 |
Then CID 1188 must be rejected too |
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
Sent: 01 May 2018 00:14
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGM] REVmd update to EDITOR ad hoc comment spreadsheet
--- 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