Can anyone enlighten
me as to what the objections to comment 374 and 375 are?
Looking at table 4,
the size of the type fields for HT==0 and HT!=0 are clearly swapped and should
be the other way around. As currently written, the text of table 4 is out of
step with figures 19 and 20 and the headers end up without byte alignment or
enough bits to accommodate the encoding in table 6 in packet
types in generic MPDUs.
So I'm perplexed as
to what the objection is.
DJ