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

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 ---

Hello Mike,

 

> For CID 324, your proposed resolution to the comment goes beyond the scope of the comment. If you want this work done, please prepare a contribution or take a note to issue comments (with a complete proposed resolution) in the initial letter ballot.

 

My proposed resolution to the comment is to delete "L is defined in 1.5 (Terminology for mathematical, logical, and bit operations)".  It's Edward who's making the claim that "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.", not me.

 

> For CID 453, please advise whether we need to assign the comment to you so that you can prepare a complete resolution. Otherwise we can motion the resolution in this document.

 

Sure, assign it to me then.

 

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: Friday, 17 September 2021 16:02
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Edward Au (edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx) <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Please add 21/0803r2 to the queue of submissions

 

Hey Mark,

 

Thanks for the responses. Here are my comments on your responses:

 

For CID 324, your proposed resolution to the comment goes beyond the scope of the comment. If you want this work done, please prepare a contribution or take a note to issue comments (with a complete proposed resolution) in the initial letter ballot.

 

For CID 453, please advise whether we need to assign the comment to you so that you can prepare a complete resolution. Otherwise we can motion the resolution in this document.

 

Thanks,


Mike

 

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 4:23 AM Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 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

 

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