I was asked to start a thread on this comment:
|
CID 1859 |
9.4.2.30 |
It is not clear whether it is OK to have a Classifier Mask field (where it is not reserved) that is all-0, and if so whether that is
an "always matches" or a "never matches" |
At the end of the
subclause add "If a Classifier Mask field is present and all bits that are not reserved are 0, then this classifier never matches." |
As far as I can tell, the classifiers have the following classifier
masks:
0, 1, 2, 4, 5: bitmap indicating parameters that need to match
6, 7, 8, 9: bitmap with 2-bit
subbitmaps
3: reserved
10: not present (despite what Figure 9-364—Frame Classifier field format says -- see CID 1856)
The direction of the group was to specify that classifiers that
don't classify anything shall not be transmitted, rather than
trying to specify that they never or always match.
Because there are so many classifiers, and they classify in quite
significantly different ways, I propose adding this general statement
at the end of 9.4.2.30:
A classifier classifies on the basis of at least one match.
NOTE---For example, when the Classifier Mask field is present and
not reserved, at least one bit of this field that is not reserved is set to 1.
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
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