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

Re: [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 ---
Mark, Emily,

In looking at 1188, the change that is indicated is to correct an editing error.
It is not quite the same category as a technical correction to text.


Dorothy


On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Qi, Emily H <emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

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

 

From: Mark Rison [mailto:m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 6:37 AM


To: Qi, Emily H <emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.ORG
Subject: RE: REVmd update to EDITOR ad hoc comment spreadsheet

 

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.ORG
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@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Qi, Emily H
Sent: 01 May 2018 00:14
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.ORG
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:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/18/11-18-0657-02-000m-revmd-wg-lb232-comments-for-editor-ad-hoc.xls

 

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


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