Mark/all,
But, wait:
- Your proposal:
"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:
- Be over-specification, in that the only time the STA will care about the APs’ behavior is when it is on the same channel as the reported AP, and looking for other APs in the area. In which case saying both that the AP is on this channel and the STA is on this channel is redundant. And,
- This is over-specification, because the STA only cares about the APs that are on the same channel, so it knows how to scan on that channel. When the STA is on some other channel, it must use logic that works for that other channel, and has nothing to do with this bit/indication for the reported AP.
- The original text had an important “might”, in “and that might be detected by a STA receiving this frame”. So, it isn’t “are in range”, but “might be in range”.
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>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 3:37 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 2310 re-consideration : was [Pull requests for today's motions]
--- 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>
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2022 21:16
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: CID 2310 re-consideration : was [Pull requests for today's motions]
Mark,
regarding this comment:
CID 2310 in MAC-AL: The claim made in 22/0311 that the highlighted bits are the same:
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 that might be detected by a STA receiving this frame [An AP might be detected by a station (STA) if the STA and the AP are on the same channel and in range.]
is not correct. The question is not whether the APs operate in the same
channel as the reported AP, but whether the APs operate in the same
channel as the STA that "might detect" them, and are in range. The
changes proposed lose what is intended by "might detect" here.
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