| 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 ---
On 6/14/21, 6:04 AM, "Mark Rison" <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
a.
Document 11-21/871 – Dan (HPE) – Rejected Groups in SAE I have the following comments on this submission: - Is the "shall" going to result in any existing devices becoming noncompliant? I believe this was addressed on the call. - "Each rejected group shall be represented as an unsigned 16-bit integer using the bit ordering conventions of 9.2.2
(Conventions)." does not belong in Clause 12, and is already covered in Clause 9 (specifically 9.4.2.246->9.4.1.42->9.2.2). The correct place is Clause 9 because Clause 9 is for format/encoding and other clauses are for behaviour. Since there was additional support by other people on the call to leave this language here. So I believe this has been addressed and you accept no change will be made. - I think "in response to rejection of a previous SAE Commit message with status code set to UNSUPPORTED_FINITE_CYCLIC_GROUP" is unclear. Is it the previous SAE Commit message that carries that SC, or is it the rejection of that SAE Commit message that carries that SC? And what does “a previous” mean here? Does it mean “the immediately previous”? Again, this text is not unclear to the many people who have implemented this protocol. The issue at hand is a different part of the paragraph. This text, from the standpoint
of people who implement the standard, is fine. Of course you are free to comment on this in the next round of balloting of this draft. - I suggest the wording could be made more straightforward and consistent as follows: 12.4.7.4 Encoding and decoding of SAE Commit messages An SAE Commit message shall
[The first change has been made in 21/0871r1 but I can't work out how to edit it in this email!] Yes, this edit in email thing seems to be part of the problem. That said, I think what you're asking is that the final sentence go from: "If the status code of the SAE Commit message is SAE_HASH_TO_ELEMENT and if any groups have been rejected during the current SAE session, the Rejected Groups element shall
be present, otherwise it shall not be present." to" "If an SAE Commit message with status code set to SAE_HASH_TO_ELEMENT is being sent and any groups have been rejected during the current SAE session, the Rejected Groups element
shall be present, otherwise it shall not be present." Correct? So this is "consistent" in the sense that it now talks about "a Commit Message with status code FOO being sent" as a previous sentence does. But that sentence is using
that construction to refer to the current message being a response to an immediately previous attempt. This text just says that if there had been any previous rejections, regardless of what your current response is for (again, it could be an anti-clogging
token), then you include the Rejected Groups element. So I think the text in the submission is still better and more clear. If you have an additional suggestion for this sentence to increase clarity I'd like to hear it. Probably better to just send the whole
sentence instead of attempting this highlight/crossout thing in email. How would you feel about: "If the status code of the SAE Commit message being sent is SAE_HASH_TO_ELEMENT and any groups have been rejected during the current SAE session, the Rejected Groups element
shall be present, otherwise it shall not be present." Can you live with that? 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 regards, Dan. -- "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius [MR1]Is it the previous SAE Commit message that carries that SC, or is
it the rejection of that SAE Commit message that carries that SC? And what does “a previous” mean here? Does it mean “the immediately previous”? Otherwise what does it mean (assuming no time-travel)? 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 |