Hi Dave,
Thank you for revising your contribution based on my inputs.
In my opinion, we should not be deleting “Transmitted BSSID group addressed traffic indication” from the figure. Figures L4, L5 & L6 are specifically meant to cover the traffic announcement (representation of bits in the TIM bitmap) for
a multiple BSSID set [please see paragraph starting line 42 of pg 6089]. With that context in mind, AID0 corresponds to the group addressed traffic indication for the AP corresponding to the TxBSSID. Therefore, the reference to “Transmitted BSSID group addressed
traffic” in the figure should be kept. The proposed replacement “Traffic Indicator/AID 0” does not convey that this is traffic indication for
buffered group addressed frame at the transmitted BSSID. The only update should be changing ‘indication’ to ‘indicator’ (for both TxBSSID and nonTxBSSID cases).
Regards,
Abhi
From: David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 1:54 PM
To: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx; mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>; M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 7218 - More work required
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Hi Abhi & Mark R.,
Please review L-4, L-5, L-6 & L-7 for CID 7219 in 24/689r3 and let me know if they match your descriptions.
This doesn't address Mark H's comments about circles, boxes, etc. Provided you two believe the changes match your suggestions, I'm thinking we should run a straw poll such as,
For CID 7219 should we do,
A) Nothing (Reject)
B) Accept changes changes in 24/689r3 for CID 7219
Dave H.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 2:25 PM Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mark, All,
Thank you for your email. Please find my responses in-line below in green:
Regards,
Abhi
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 4:49 AM
To: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxx>; Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>; M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 7218 - More work required
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Hello Abhi,
Where is the behaviour (as opposed to the encoding/format) for the
NonTxBSS ID bits specified?
The normative behaviour is described in 11.1.3.8.5 – I have copied a snippet from REVme D5.0:
[I have a separate comment about this for the vanilla Traffic Indicator
field, 7217.)
We should consider harmonizing the terminology used at different locations within the spec.
Also, is there a difference between "NonTxBSS ID" and "NonTxBSSID"
(the latter in "NonTxBSSID Profiles")?
NonTxBSS refers to the BSS of an AP corresponding to the nontransmitted BSSID in a multiple BSSID set.
NonTxBSSID refers to the BSSID of the AP corresponding to the nontransmitted BSSID in the set. We shouldn’t be having any instances of this in the standard.
NonTxBSSID profile is a short way of referring to Nontransmitted BSSID Profile and I found it is being used as part of the field name: “Complete List of NonTxBSSID Profiles” or in Figure 11-6.
> I would suggest (at least for L4 and L5) to keep the existing text à Nontransmitted BSSID group addressed traffic indication.
I could probably live with the figure saying "Nontransmitted BSSID group addressed traffic indicator"
(specifically lowercase "traffic indicator" so that it can be found when
people search for information on "Traffic Indicator").
I am OK with the above suggestion.
> NOTE, we need to remove the hyphen (-) in the term nontransmitted BSSID.
Where do you see a hyphen?
My bad, I thought there was a hyphen (when I was reviewing doc 689).
> [MarkH is] becoming more and more convinced by these examples that if we mean to be referencing just one “cell” (one bit) in these figures, we can’t point to that bit with a (thin) line, nor with an arrow, and have it be understood. I think the heavy box around the 15 bits for Non-TX BSS IDs in the figure just below is clear. But, the other items (“Traffic Indicator”, “Bitmap Offset” “Bitmap Control”, “AID 0”, and similar, are not at all clear. I think we need a box, or a circle, or something like that, around the “cells” that we are referencing with these pointers.
I'm fine with having thick boxes for all the things pointed to by
arrows or lines, I think.
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: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2024 07:43
To: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>; David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxx>; Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>; M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 7218 - More work required
Hi All,
In case of multiple BSSID set, each bit position 1 thru 2^n-1 in the partial virtual bitmap of the TIM IE is reserved to indicate buffered group addressed frames at an AP corresponding to a nontransmitted BSSID whose index matches the value between 1 thru 2^n-1. Please see pg 904 of REVme D5.0 for details. On the same page, we define the term NonTxBSS ID. However, that term is not used anywhere else in the spec. As a result, it can be confusing to someone who doesn’t have the necessary background to corelate the term ‘NonTxBSS ID’ in Annex L with group addressed traffic indication for an AP corresponding to a nonTxBSSID.
I would suggest (at least for L4 and L5) to keep the existing text à Nontransmitted BSSID group addressed traffic indication. NOTE, we need to remove the hyphen (-) in the term nontransmitted BSSID.
Regards,
Abhi
From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:40 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 7218 - More work required
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
All,
I am becoming more and more convinced by these examples that if we mean to be referencing just one “cell” (one bit) in these figures, we can’t point to that bit with a (thin) line, nor with an arrow, and have it be understood. I think the heavy box around the 15 bits for Non-TX BSS IDs in the figure just below is clear. But, the other items (“Traffic Indicator”, “Bitmap Offset” “Bitmap Control”, “AID 0”, and similar, are not at all clear. I think we need a box, or a circle, or something like that, around the “cells” that we are referencing with these pointers.
Mark
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April, 2024 16:15
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 7218 - More work required
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hello Dave,
As regards Traffic Indicator/AID 0, I suggest something like this (I have no
idea why the resolution is so poor):
The AID 0/16/24/32/39 bits get their own label and arrow,
and separately the Traffic Indicator, Bitmap Control and
Partial Virtual Bitmap fields get their own lines/braces.
If I were doing this in Visio I'd probably move the AID 0
label down so the Traffic Indicator label can have a horizontal
line to its bit.
[I don't understand NonTxBSS IDs well enough to say whether
having a line to a polygon of bits is good for those.]
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: David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2024 22:43
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 7218 - More work required
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi Mark R.,
We had some discussion regarding L-5, L-6 and L-7 regarding "Traffic Indicator/AID 0".
Did you want "Traffic Indicator/AID 0" changed? If yes, please provide a change suggestion.
With a link to 24/689r2 this time.
Dave H.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 5:39 PM David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mark R.,
We had some discussion regarding L-5, L-6 and L-7 regarding "Traffic Indicator/AID 0".
Did you want "Traffic Indicator/AID 0" changed? If yes, please provide a change suggestion.
Dave H.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 5:31 PM David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: CID 7218 - More work required
To: David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxx>, Emily Qi <emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx>, Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Dave,
Thanks a lot - especially your help in updating the Visio (that we can download from the zipped file you attach in the document).
Regards,
Edward
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 1:52 PM David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Edward,
Thanks for the guidance. See the posted submission,
The last sheet has an embedded zip file which contains,
- visio files of the marked up images
- visio files of the new images
- emf files of marked up images
- emf files of the new images
Let me know if this is what is expected.
Dave H.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 7:46 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+ Emily, the most wise and powerful Editor :)
Dear Dave,
Thanks a lot! Understanding that the submissions are typically in Word format, may I know if you have some bandwidth to update these 12 VIsios and attach them in your contribution? As Mark mentioned that the contents of some of the figures may not be searchable, I speculate that we may need to update the Visios and generate them to emf again.
Regards,
Edward
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 1:21 PM David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
All wise and powerful editor Edward, let me know how you'd like me to handle CIDs 7218 and 7219.
With CID 7218,
There are 8 text instances in Annex L that should have the "Group Addressed" stricken. For instance,
Group AddressedTraffic Indicator
Also the following figures should likewise have the "Group Addressed" stricken.
L-8, L-9, L-10, L-11, L-12, L-13, L-14 & L-15.
With CID 7219,
The following figures should have "Nontransmitted BSSID group addressed traffic indication" changed to "NonTxBSS ID". This is where "NonTxBSS ID" is from clause 9.4.2.5.1.
L-4, L-5, L-6 & L-7.
I do have Visio on my laptop. But I wasn't sure how you'd like me to handle since the submissions are typically in Word format.
Dave H.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:20 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yay, an once-in-a-life experience :)
Thanks for sharing the photo too!
Ed
On Mon., Apr. 8, 2024, 14:54 David Halasz, <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
btw, are you able to see the eclipse? I put a sunglass shade over my camera lens and was able to get a partial. Full eclipse in about 20 minutes.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 2:40 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Dave,
Thanks re both 7218 and 7219.
For CID 7217, it is a MAC comment that I see Mark H assigned it to Mark R.
Regards,Edward
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 9:34 AM David Halasz <dave.halasz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Edward,
Can you give me the latest status of CID 7217? It looks related to 7218 & 7219.
Go ahead and assign them to me.
Dave H.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 1:22 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Dave,
Hope you are doing great.
In addition to CID 7218 that we reassigned to you for an updated proposed resolution during the March 2024 plenary, may I know if you can take care of CID 7219 submitted by Mark Rison (copied here) too?
CID 7219's comments:I also note that in some of the Annex L figures the Traffic Indicator field is described as Transmitted BSSID group addressed traffic indication/AID 0 and Nontransmitted BSSID group addressed traffic indication though some of the figures aren't searchable
CID 7219's proposed resolution:
Use consistent wording and make figures searchable
Please kindly advise.
Regards,
Edward
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 6:47 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Dave,
As per the discussion on Wednesday PM2, I am now reassigning CID 7218 to you.
Thanks for your help in resolving this CID!
Regards,
Edward
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
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