Re: [STDS-802-16] Comments 374 & 375

[Itzik Kitroser <itzikk@RUNCOM.CO.IL>]

Title: Message

I would have recommended the original commenter to declare his comment as withdrawn or superceded, since his comment was already accepted (see Roger's note).

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob Nelson
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:29 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Comments 374 & 375

 

DJ

 

I’m not sure either. In any case, the comments can be safely rejected since the noted problem has been dealt with through accepted comments 14 and 18.

 

Bob

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Johnston, Dj
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:09 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Comments 374 & 375

 

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