[STDS-802-11] "Present if <condition>" so what about not <condition>?

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

All,

REVme is looking for feedback on current implementation behavior/assumptions on a wide-ranging technical point:

REVme is discussing a comment on D1.0 (CID 1622) that requests, in effect, to add a statement to clause 9 that wherever we currently have a requirement such as “the xxx element is present if condition yyy is true”, then there is an implicit _requirement_ (to be made explicit by this comment) that if “condition yyy” is not true then “xxx” is _not_ present. Specifically, the added sentence(s) would be:

“If an element is indicated as present when certain conditions are met, this is to be understood as meaning that the element is not included if these conditions are not met.”

Some considerations, and where we would like feedback:

In many places in the current spec, we explicitly say “and not present otherwise” (or something similar)
However, there are also many places in the spec where this is not stated.

Some of these unstated locations can be read as implying or only making sense if we take this to mean “is not included if these conditions are not met”
Other places are not clear. In those places, are there implementations that may include the element, as an “allowed extension” (since it is not currently prohibited), and thus those implementations would become non-compliant if add this sentence?
Or, in those places, is the general assumption and implementation practice already to not include the element, so adding the statement above would be a proper clarification of existing interpretation?

Feedback to this reflector, or to the REVme reflector, is appreciated.

Thanks! Mark

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1