a) Delete the sentence
b) Delete the word Natural
c) Reject the comment
d) Abstain
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---Hello Thomas,
If that's the intent (though frankly I'm rather unconvinced that anyone
might think that unless specified otherwise numbers are to be encoded
using Gray codes…) then say it clearly; something like:
Values specified in decimal are coded with bit n representing 2n unless otherwise stated.
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: Thomas Derham <thomas.derham@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2021 21:04
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 359 "Natural Binary"
If you search “natural binary” on Google, most of the links discuss comparison between natural binary codes and Gray codes.
Therefore the word “natural” seems to help the implementer to understand not to use one of the Gray codes - unless similar guidance is provided elsewhere?
Thanks
Thomas
On Nov 10, 2021, at 12:58 PM, Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
I don't think this is clear. It is quite possible that after this
discussion, when presented with the option of deleting the word "natural",
there will be consensus (75% of those voting Y or N voting Y, correct?).
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 20:44
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 359 "Natural Binary"
Unfortunately we considered deleting the word "natural" yesterday and we straw polled the proposed resolution against others and there was clearly no consensus moving forward with that resolution.
From the minutes:
1.8.11.4. Straw Poll:
Which do you support?
a) Delete the sentence
b) Delete the word Natural
c) Reject the comment
d) Abstain
1.8.11.4.1. Results: 3-14-12-13 no answer = 64
Cheers,
Mike
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:59 PM Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hello Guido,
I agree with what you're saying, but I'd just like to point out that re
> Since the standard defines the terms little and big endian (and uses
> them in several places) one could alternatively state "Values specified
> in decimal are represented in binary using the big-endian format and
> transmitted LSB first."
we don't need the second half (and the "represented in binary using the
big-endian format" looks wrong to me anyway, though I'm not sure what
"represented" is trying to say here) because the endianness is already
specified earlier in 9.2.2:
"
In figures, all bits within fields are numbered, from 0 to k, where the length of the field is k + 1 bits. Bits
within numeric fields that are longer than a single bit are depicted in increasing order of significance, i.e.,
with the lowest numbered bit having the least significance. The octet boundaries within a field can be
obtained by taking the bit numbers of the field modulo 8. Octets within numeric fields that are longer than a
single octet are depicted in increasing order of significance, from lowest numbered bit to highest numbered
bit. The octets in fields longer than a single octet are sent to the PHY in order from the octet containing the
lowest numbered bits to the octet containing the highest numbered bits.
"
So it really is as simple as deleting "natural".
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Guido R. Hiertz <hiertz@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2021 19:19
> 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 ---
>
> Dear Mike, Dear all,
>
> At 2021-11-10T15:07+0100 M Montemurro wrote:
> > 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.
>
> the original IEEE 802.11 standard had various mistakes that were
> resolved over many years. For example, IEEE 802.11-1997 mentions an
> ESSID without specifying what it is. Another example is the term WDS
> that was removed with the IEEE 802.11-2016 version.
>
> I am under the impression that the standard has similar, old paragraphs
> that have not received a lot of attention. Therefore, it seems to me
> that the "age" of some text is not necessarily related to the text being
> especially mature or correct.
>
> > 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.
>
> In my view, less is more. If the standard specifies decimal values to be
> "coded in natural binary unless otherwise stated," and the standard
> doesn't specify what "unnatural binary" is ;-), and if there is a common
> understanding how decimal values are converted into binary values (with
> LSB first), it seems advisable to at least delete the term "natural."
>
> Since the standard defines the terms little and big endian (and uses
> them in several places) one could alternatively state "Values specified
> in decimal are represented in binary using the big-endian format and
> transmitted LSB first."
>
> Best regards,
>
> Guido
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
>
> IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this
> CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
>
> SELF SERVICE OPTION:
> Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and
> then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector
> press the LEAVE button.
>
> Further information can be found at: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=4ce23e08-13790746-4ce3b547-
> 0cc47a31ba82-8af32118138cc84c&q=1&e=7b2f8b50-61ef-4050-9500-
> 34a2c43d4602&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee802.org%2F11%2FEmail_Subscribe.html
> _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this
CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION:
Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM and
then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector
press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
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