Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Mark/all, But, wait:
"The Unsolicited Probe Responses Active subfield is set to 1, if the reported AP is part of an ESS where all the APs that operate in the same channel as the reported AP and are in range of and on the same channel as a STA receiving this frame" Seems to have redundancy, or over-specification. The point of this subfield is for STAs know if they can do passive scanning looking for Unsolicited Probes, or if the STA needs to do any kind of more complicated scanning (active scanning, or waiting for more than 20 Tus (for a Beacon, etc.), or whatever. So, since your restatement already has “all the APs that operate in the same channel as the reported AP”. The addition of “on the same channel as a STA” seems to:
Thus, if we instead stated: "The Unsolicited Probe Responses Active subfield is set to 1, if the reported AP is part of an ESS where all the APs that operate in the same channel as the reported AP and *might be* in range of a STA receiving this frame…" I think that would be equivalent. And, can I assume this discussion is about 9.4.2.36 and would also be applied to the usage in the next paragraph (about 2.4/5 GHz co-located) – and in 9.4.2.170, and 11.53, also? All that said, I thought we were worried the use of “detected access point” in 26.17.2.3.3. In this case, we are talking about rules for sending a Probe Request in 6 GHz, which is getting into the rule about a STA being “enabled” by an AP on the channel, to know that it can transmit a Probe without waiting a FILSDelay before doing active probing. In this case, I think we are intentionally very open about how the STA knows about the presence of this AP, including getting information from other sources (RNR, etc.) let alone “beyond the scope of this standard” methods. Here, we probably need slightly different wording, something like “the AP might be in range of the STA” is probably sufficient. (I note that the sentence already says “in that channel”, referring to the channel being scanned.) Mark From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector --- Hello Stephen, > I think the following edit may work: > "The Unsolicited Probe Responses Active subfield is set to 1, if the reported AP is part of an ESS where all the APs that operate in the same channel as the reported AP and are in range of and might be detected by a STA receiving this frame" An AP "might be detected" by a STA if a) it is in range of the STA b) it is on the same channel as the STA So if you want to get rid of "might be detected" then it needs to be changes of the form: "The Unsolicited Probe Responses Active subfield is set to 1, if the reported AP is part of an ESS where all the APs that operate in the same channel as the reported AP and are in range of and on the same channel as a STA receiving this frame" (for all instances of might-be-detectedness). 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: Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx> Mark, regarding this comment:
I would kindly state that submission 22/0311 actually states: "Apart from the words “in range”, the 2 highlighted sentences repeat the same statement." Alas, it does not suggest that the highlighted bits are the same, as they clearly are not. In addition, I would contend that the words "in range" are the ones missing from the deletion and not the words "might detect". However, I think the following edit may work: "The Unsolicited Probe Responses Active subfield is set to 1, if the reported AP is part of an ESS where all the APs that operate in the same channel as the reported AP and are in range of and might be detected by a STA receiving this frame," Do you have any further comments? 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 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 |