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 --- >> we could add that otherwise it is optional

If we were to make such change globally, I think we’d need to be careful there are no cases where a peer infers a device supports a feature based on its transmission of the element.

I get the desire to dot i’s and cross t’s here, but if there’s going to be significant work to make sure we avoid unintended consequences, we should consider whether it’s a productive use of time (imho).

Thanks
Thomas


On Feb 2, 2022, at 10:34 AM, Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- 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


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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature