I went through comment resolutions and interpretation requests for REVma, REVmb, REVmc, and REVmd. I have not seen anything that justifies any confusion about this statement in the standard.Personally I have not seen any justification to convince me that this text needs to be changed. It sounds mostly like individual preferences, which in my opinion justifies a change. Therefore, I don't see any reason to make any changes.Cheers,MikeCheers,MikeOn Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 7:38 AM Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---Hello Edward,
Well if that's the definition of "natural binary", then it's describing
how binary numbers are written in the spec [*]. But the sentence in
dispute is about how numbers written in decimal in the spec are encoded
(over the air). So that would be another argument for dropping "natural"
in that sentence.
Thanks,
Mark
[*] That Wireshark list quote suggests it's msb first. However, see
e.g. CIDs 499 and 456.
--
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: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2021 11:37
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IEEE802.11 TGmc <STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 359 "Natural Binary"
Hello all,
Yes - this term appears since 802.11-1997.
I read from a public website the following (https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/201204/msg00062.html) about "natural binary":
Refering to the official 802.11s specification:
7.1.6.3 Mesh Control Field and Table 9-3
While section 7.1.6.3 Table 7-6g1 is ambigous the convention in 802.11-2007 is that the table values stating (binary) are in "natural binary" (i.e. b1b0).(Please note that clause 7 in the past refers to clause 9 in 802.11-2020).
It is indeed true that many of the table values in our standards are arranged in this manner. For example, in Table 27-26, we have "RU Allocation field (B8 B7 B6 B5 B4 B3 B2 B1 B0)".
Regards,
Edward
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 5:26 AM Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
I think that the discussion last night showed that this text does
cause massive confusion (e.g. some people seemed to think it referred
to some form of BCD)! I think it behooves those who claim that
"natural binary" isn't just binary to provide a definition of the term
(in the discussion yesterday I don't think anyone came up with a
definition of what "natural binary" was), or a pointer to a document
defining the term (ideally some IEEE document).
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: Wednesday, 10 November 2021 00:21
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 359 "Natural Binary"
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Thanks Jouni,
One other thing to note is that this sentence has been in the standard since 802.11-1999.
Personally, I haven't seen any justification to demonstrate that this text is actually causing confusion or interoperability issues. Given the text and its context, we should just leave it as is.
Cheers,
Mike
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 6:49 PM Jouni Malinen <jkmalinen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
I'm interpreting this to be a reference to Natural Binary Code, i.e., the key point here is in the values shown (in the standard text, figures, tables) in the decimal notation getting encoded in binary and not in Gray code, BCD, or ASCII, etc. While this might be at least implicitly described elsewhere, it would seem reasonable to maintain this explicit statement in the Conventions subclause. As such, I guess the comment could be rejected, but based on the discussion and numerous interpretations/guesses brought up during the discussion, it might be better to delete the word "natural" here with the expectation of "coded in binary" being easier to understand or at least less likely to produce wild guesses of what is natural or unnatural about the binary encoding. Another alternative approach would be to define "natural binary" or reference "natural binary code", but I'm not convinced this would be the best approach for the IEEE 802.11 standard unless a clearly understood, externally defined term could be used as-is.
- Jouni
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:44 AM Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Dear all,
during today's REVme call, we discussed CID 359:
CID
Page
Line
Clause
Comment
Proposed Change
Resolution
359
774
33
9.2.2
"Values specified in decimal are coded in natural binary unless otherwise stated. " -- how does natural binary differ from unnatural binary?
Delete the cited sentence
There was no convergence on an opinion as to how to resolve this, so I'm requesting your feedback. The discussion was regarding the term "natural binary" and whether this is different from "binary". Thanks.
Kind regards
Stephen
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