| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Raja and All,
Comment #337 was to clarify what meaning of
"default", only:
-----------------------------------
This parameter
indicates which classification/PHS options and SDU encapsulation the SS
supports.
By default, Packet, IPv4 and 802.3 shall be
supported, thus absence of this parameter in REG-REQ
means that named options
are supported by the
SS
------------------------------------------
Typically in the
standard term "default" is used that there is a choice between several values
for specific parameter. But in this case several different TLV values may be
present in the message, in the case when the SS supports more than one option.
This is why I found term "default" inappropriate.
Comment #339 does not explain meaning of "default", so
the problem stays:
--------------------------------------
Bits #0: ATM
Bits #1: Packet, IPv4 (default)
Bits #2:
Packet, IPv6
Bits #3: Packet, 802.3 (default)
Bits #4: Packet, 802.1Q
VLAN
... etc.
----------------------------------
Reasonable resolution would be change the table as suggested in #339 and make addition in the text, as suggested in #337.
Vladimir
-----Original Message-----
From: Raja Banerjea [mailto:RBanerjea@PROXIM.COM]
Sent:
Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:01 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject:
Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment resolution
voting
Also as 339 was accepted 337 should be rejected or
withdrawn.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Labs [mailto:jlabs@WAVESAT.COM]
Sent:
Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:50 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject:
Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on comment
resolution
voting
If I'm not mistaken two more comments should be
added to this list: comment
#374 and #375 have been superceded by comment
#14.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Yigal Leiba
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:04 PM
To:
STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations
on comment resolution
voting
I would like to propose adding to
that list comment #159.
Although I appreciate the good intention behind the
comment of clarifying
the different OFDMA permutations, the comment tries to
modify text that at
least in part is obsolete, loses some of the
clarifications that where made
by other comments (#160, #161), and wrongly
defines the term 'zone'.
Yigal
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:48 AM
To:
STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] my recommendations on
comment resolution voting
Personally, I recommend voting Reject on a
number of comments that
are meaningless because they have been superceded. I
don't think you
should waste time thinking about them:
Comment 171:
This was superceded by 170; the lines can't be changed
because they were
deleted by 170.
Comment 230: This was superceded by 229; the lines can't
be changed
because they were deleted by 229.
Comment 52: The entire
change was already made in Comment 53. Comment
52 won't change that either
way.
Comment 169: This says to accept the changes in 168. Those
changes
have already been accepted. Comment 169 won't change that either
way.
Comment 232: This says to accept the changes in 202. Those
changes
have already been accepted. Comment 232 won't change that either
way.
All of these should have been withdrawn, in my opinion.
If
I'm mistaken, please say so.
Roger
This mail passed through
mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This
footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************