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 ---
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> 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> --- 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:
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 |