Thanks for these resolutions, Edward. I have the following comments:
- CID 262:
At 2528.63, insert the following NOTE: “The maximum number of TWTs per a single pair of STAs is 8” in P802.11REVme D0.3.
should be
At 2528.63, insert “NOTE—The maximum number of TWTs for a single pair of STAs is 8.” in P802.11REVme D0.3.
- CID 553
> The term “block ack rules” is used in the draft.
I find only two instances, and they should be fixed too, since the
terminology for the concept (as opposed to the frame) is
"block acknowledgement" rather than "block ack". The two instances are:
10.25.6.2 HT-immediate block ack architecture
The HT-immediate block ack rules are explained in terms of
10.25.9.2 DMG block ack architecture with flow control
The DMG block ack rules are explained in terms of
- CID 210
Resolution should either be ACCEPTED or state that the other proposed
change location was deleted by another resolution.
- CID 255
10.23.2.2 has nothing about the NAV, or about RTSes. In contrast,
10.23.2.4 refers to the NAC and to RTSes. I cannot be sure which subclause
was originally intended before the spec rotted, but 10.23.2.4 is definitely
more relevant than 10.23.2.2 here.
- CID 324
If the argument is "It does no harm to remind the readers that the definition of L can be found in subclause 1.5. It also makes the equation easier to understand by the readers when all parameters are defined/mentioned immediately afterwards."
then a xref also needs to be added in the other locations where L()
is used:
11.23.4 Service hash procedure
12.4.5.4 Processing of a peer’s SAE Commit message
12.7.1.2 PRF
12.7.1.3 Pairwise key hierarchy
12.7.1.4 Group key hierarchy
12.7.1.6.3 PMK-R0
12.7.1.6.5 PTK
12.7.8.2 TPK handshake
etc. (I can supply a full list if required)
- CID 453
If the desired outcome is for "Group addressed privacy" (with scare
quotes) for the column name and group addressed privacy (without)
for the concept, then the following locations also need fixing:
11.12 Group addressed management frame protection procedures
For group addressed Management frames that are specified with Yes in the Group Addressed Privacy column
12.5.3 CTR with CBC-MAC protocol (CCMP)
12.5.3.1 General
When CCMP is selected as the RSN pairwise cipher and management frame protection is negotiated,
individually addressed robust Management frames and the group addressed Management frames that receive
“Group Addressed Privacy” as indicated in Table 9-51 (Category values) shall be protected with CCMP.
and similarly in 12.5.5.1 GCMP overview.
14.7 Mesh security
When dot11MeshSecurityActivated is true, all individually addressed mesh Data frames and individually
addressed robust Management frames (see 12.2.7 (Requirements for management frame protection)) shall
be protected by the mesh TKSA, and all group addressed Data frames and group addressed Action frames
that are indicated as “Group Addressed Privacy” in Table 9-51 (Category values) shall be protected by the
mesh GTKSA.
But hadn't we agreed a while ago not to have scare quotes for column
names?
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: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2021 18:36
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Please add 21/0803r2 to the queue of submissions
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi Edward,
Thank you very much for providing these resolutions. Given that these 40 comments are editorial, I will announce during today's meeting that we will mark them ready for motion with a targeted motion date for Monday.
Everyone is encouraged to review the resolutions and identify comments from the document that we need to pull from the motion for further discussion.
The document is: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0803-03-000m-proposed-resolution-for-revme-cc35-comments-part-2.docx
The 40 CIDs are:
279, 467, 464, 375, 337, 317, 274, 560, 561, 472, 424, 222, 151, 558, 481, 262, 382, 552, 553, 210, 482, 40, 426, 255, 332, 174, 218, 555, 570, 433, 194, 197, 440, 578, 134, 252, 324, 314, 203, 453
Thanks,
Mike
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:19 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mike and all,
I have added proposed resolution of 21 additional ED2 CIDs to my document, which is now 21/0803r3:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0803-03-000m-proposed-resolution-for-revme-cc35-comments-part-2.docx
In summary, the following 40 CIDs are added for discussion this Friday:
279, 467, 464, 375, 337, 317, 274, 560, 561, 472, 424, 222, 151, 558, 481, 262, 382, 552, 553, 210, 482, 40, 426, 255, 332, 174, 218, 555, 570, 433, 194, 197, 440, 578, 134, 252, 324, 314, 203, 453
Regards,
Ed
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:31 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mike and all,
Proposed resolution of 19 ED2 CIDs is uploaded:
Regards,
Edward
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:39 AM M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great, thanks!
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:34 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks! Friday works for me. As mentioned, i will upload the document later today.
Regards,
Ed
On Mon., Sep. 13, 2021, 10:26 M Montemurro, <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ed,
Thanks. I can add you to the agenda for Friday if that works for you.
Cheers,
MIke
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:02 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Would you kindly add 21/0803r2 to the queue of submissions?
I have prepared a resolution of at least 5 CIDs that are ready for the Task Group to review and I will upload the document by the end of today (Monday).
Thanks and Regards,
Edward
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