Hello,
I've come up with the following resolution for CID 324. Is it acceptable
to you?
Identifiers
Comment
Proposed change
CID 324
Mark RISON
11.45.4
2503.39
"L is defined in 1.5 (Terminology for mathematical, logical, and bit operations)" is not needed (not used elsewhere)
Delete the cited line
Discussion:
There is no need to refer back to Subclause 1.5 for operators etc. defined there, and indeed we don’t do so anywhere else in the draft. The whole point of Subclause 1.5 is to have operators etc. used all over the spec in one place, so we don’t have to keep cross-referencing to their definition.
There is nothing special about the use of L() in 11.45.4. It’s not even special in that it’s a use outside Clause 12 (where L() is most prevalent) as there is a non-xreffed use in 11.23.4. We really don’t need the spec to have unnecessary and haphazard xrefs like this.
Ironically, though, 11.45.4 does invoke a function SHA256 which is (a) not xreffed and (b) non-existent (the function name, as described in Subclause 1.4, has a hyphen).
Proposed resolution:
REVISED
Delete the cited line (~2503.39) as proposed and additionally change “SHA256” to “SHA-256” at 2503.35.
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