Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Dear 802.11 members, Apologies for the wide audience, but I’m trying to get the attention of a wide range of MAC folks who might not normally pay attention to REVmc. Please reply to me directly to reduce spam. I’ll start a “local” email thread amongst any respondents. I’m resolving a comment about duplication of functionality in the START.request primitive. Here is my proposed comment resolution:
Discussion: Redundancy exists around the BSSBasicMCSSet, which is present in the HT Operation element. Redundancy possibly exists around the HTOperationalMCSSet, which duplicates information (supported MCSs) present in the HT Capabilities element.
In this case the picture is more complex, because we have differing models emerging.
1.
The OperationalRateSet parameter represents both a restriction on the devices transmit behaviour and the only thing known by other STAs
about its receive capabilities. The value of this Set is exposed by a read-only MIB variable.
2.
The HTOperationalMCSSet represents a restriction on a device’s transmit behaviour, independent of its capabilities. The value of this
parameter is related to (presumably set by) a related read-write MIB variable. But the following are difficult:
a.
“The STA’(#1485)s HTOperationalMCSSet shall include all of the MCSs in the BSSBasicMCSSet.” is a requirement on the external entity programming
this MIB variable.
b.D2.0
182.16 “The STA shall be able to receive at each of the data rates listed in the set.” indicates that the .11n authors thought this was a receive capability, which it is not.
c.
The BSS Description includes the HTOperationalMCSSet, but this set is not transmitted in a Beacon frame, so there is no way this can
be known.
3.
.11ad doesn’t have this parameter. It has mandatory MCSs and it has supported MCSs.
4.
VHT has yet another model. Its OperationalVHTMCS_NSSSet provides a transmitter restriction, but is present only in the JOIN.request.
There is no related MIB variable. I propose to rationalize this by removing the .11n and .11ac Operational MCS sets and related normative specification throughout the standard. Changes: (Related to D2.4, so that .11ac changes are included) Delete HTOperationalMCSSet table row at 140.25 (BSS Description), 147.12 (JOIN), 191.19 (START) Delete HTOperationalMCSSet parameter at 146.30 (JOIN.request), 189.11 (START.request) Delete OperationalVHTMCS_NSSSet parameter at 146.39 (JOIN) Delete OperationalVHTMCS_NSSSet table row at 147.51. Change 1219.30:
Change 1614.56:
Change 2700.07: (dot11OperationalRateSet)
Change 2766.48:
Create a new group dot11HTMACAdditions2 that is a copy of dot11HTMACAdditions, less the dot11HTOperationalMCSSet. Deprecate dot11HTMACAdditions.
Change dot11HTMACAdditions to dot11HTMACAdditions2 in dot11Compliances. Best Regards, Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office) Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA) ---------------------------------------------- If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect. Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button. If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ |