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

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



--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

Mark,

 

I would say, “In this case, you’re right, because it was optionally present in the first place.  However, in other cases where if either of those MIB attributes are true, then it is required to be present (not optional), we could add that otherwise it is optional.” 

 

Not sure if I am confusing your point though – and maybe you were only referring to the places where it is already “optionally present if …” ?

 

Mark

 

From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 8:15 AM
To: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11] "Present if <condition>" so what about not <condition>?

 

I think an additional point is that although one can make the argument

that while it might sometimes be harmless to include a "spurious" element,

this then makes the "optionally present" statements confusing.  To pick

one at random, in Beacon frames:

 

The Quiet element is optionally present if

dot11SpectrumManagementRequired is true or

dot11RadioMeasurementActivated is true.

 

… but if the Quiet element can also be present if neither of these MIB

attributes is true, then why are they mentioned?  Just say it is optionally

present full stop.

 

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: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2022 21:23
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11] "Present if <condition>" so what about not <condition>?

 

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

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

 


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