--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---Actually, I think the proposed change missed the fact that the statement
is for QoS STAs (non-QoS STAs are by definition not expected to receive
QoS Data frames). So maybe it should actually be:
Change to "Data frames received by a QoS STA may be of: [...]"
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: Mark Rison
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October 2021 20:51
To: 'mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx' <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGM] GEN AdHoc - CID 249 - "The received individually addressed frames at a QoS STA"
I agree with 1)-3) but it seems to me that:
"Data frames received by a STA may be of: a) Non-QoS subtypes […]"
is clearer and more straightforward than:
“Received Data frames as a QoS STA may be as follows: a) Non-QoS subtypes […]"
especially since "A Data frame *is* a non-QoS subtype" sounds a bit
odd to me and "A Data frame *is of* a non-QoS subtype" sounds correct
(though "Data frames received by a STA may have:" would be OK too).
Ah, it's my comment! Then I'm doubly in favour of a simple ACCEPTED!
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: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 October 2021 00:22
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] GEN AdHoc - CID 249 - "The received individually addressed frames at a QoS STA"
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Jon,
1)
Ø Don’t think we need to be specific in each statement, because that is the context of this subclause. Just be clear at the start of the subclause.
I agree with this intention, but I note that this subclause is about how to handle the priority parameter in the MA-UNITDATA.indication. The title, scope/purpose, and text leading up to the sentence in question, all do nothing to help with the context here that we are talking about Data frames, other than the fact that only Data frames (generally) end up (eventually) causing an MA-UNITDATA.indication, and I think that is a bit too much to assume in the clause that is trying to explain/introduce the whole MAC-SAP. Thus, I would agree with adding “Data frames”.
2) “The received” does imply there is an antecedent. I would recommend just “Received”, as in “Received individually addressed Data frames at a QoS STA …”
3) I think we’re all agreeing (it seems) with removing the “individually addressed”
So, I would settle on:
“Received Data frames as a QoS STA may be as follows:”
Mark
From: Jon Rosdahl <jrosdahl@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 4:16 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGM] GEN AdHoc - CID 249 - "The received individually addressed frames at a QoS STA"
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Greetings,
From the Minutes of May 24, 2021:
1.9.7. CID 249 (GEN):
1.9.7.1. Compared the proposed resolution to the commenter’s Proposed Change.
1.9.7.2. Believe we need to fix “The received” to clarify the antecedent.
1.9.7.3. And, we need to restrict this to Data frames.
1.9.7.4. This is in the context that these clauses are how the MAC Service.indication is generated.
1.9.7.5. This needs more review off-line.
1.9.7.6. ACTION ITEM #5: Jon, to post to the reflector the proposed solutions and solicit feedback on CID 249.
1.9.7.7. Don’t think we need to be specific in each statement, because that is the context of this subclause. Just be clear at the start of the subclause.
From the AdHoc Notes:
GEN: 2021-05-24 15:58:56Z - status set to: Discuss
Concern on the use of "The received…" being specific to what? Note that this only addresses Frames in this subclause. Don’t think we need to be specific in each statement, because that is the context of this subclause. Just be clear at the start of the subclause.
GEN: 2021-05-14 16:02:38Z - status set to: Review
GEN: 2021-05-14 15:59:20ZContext:
p299.24
"The received individually addressed frames at a QoS STA may be as follows:
a) Non-QoS subtypes, in which case the STA shall assign to them a priority of Contention.
b) QoS subtypes, in which case the STA shall infer the UP value from the TID in the QoS Control field
directly for TID values between 0 and 7. For TID values between 8 and 15 the STA shall extract the
UP value in the UP subfield of the TS Info field in the associated TSPEC or from the UP field in the
associated TCLAS (traffic classification) element, as applicable."
Proposed Resolution:
At p299.24: Change "The received individually addressed frames at a QoS STA"
to "The received frames at a QoS STA"
Comment:"The received individually addressed frames at a QoS STA may be as follows:
a) Non-QoS subtypes, in which case the STA shall assign to them a priority of Contention." -- this is also true if they're group addressedProposed Change:
Change to "Data frames received by a STA may be of: [...]"
I propose offering the text in Green.
Your feedback is welcome,
Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
IEEE 802 Executive Secretary Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
office: 801-492-4023 10871 North 5750 West
cell: 801-376-6435 Highland, UT 84003
A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!
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