CommentID CommenterName Subclause Page Line CommentType Comm Respo entSta nseSta tus tus 12 PAINE, RICHARD H 11.10 85 35 TR D W 105 Hart, Brian D 18.104.22.168 15 1 TR D W 118 Ecclesine, Peter 22.214.171.124 11 33 TR D W 126 Ecclesine, Peter 126.96.36.199.1 83 17 TR D W 141 Ecclesine, Peter 188.8.131.52 13 35 TR D W 144 Ecclesine, Peter 11.10-11.13 85 TR D W 148 Ecclesine, Peter 10.3.2.2.2 61 22 T D W 164 Ecclesine, Peter 184.108.40.206 14 50 TR D W 171 Geipel, Michael D 220.127.116.11 11 31 T D W 179 O'Hara, Robert 18.104.22.168 11 24 TR D W 180 O'Hara, Robert 22.214.171.124 11 33 TR D W 187 O'Hara, Robert 126.96.36.199 14 50 TR D W 197 O'Hara, Robert 188.8.131.52.1 83 15 TR D W 210 Myles, Andrew F 11.11.1 98 3 TR D O 241 Palm, Stephen R 11.1 99 TR D O Comment SuggestedRemedy Response Topic LB96#25-Palm:There are too Add a capabilities field so that PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh many varied procedures here. each procedure/report may be PRINCIPLE. Assigned to It is unlikely that seperately indicated and Ganesh. Similar to expanded implementations will implement negotiated capability bitmask. all of the procedures. Each of the supported procedures/reports should be seperately indicated and negotiated Max TX power is the min of Define correctly PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh device capability, regulatory PRINCIPLE. Since changes in and policy ; and is superseded the draft as a result of by reg class anyway modifications to Measurement Pilot includes removal of Max Tx Power from Measurement Pilot, the definition is now moved to Clause 184.108.40.206. Document 07/2314r0 has a more accurate definition of Max Tx Power. Text removes constraint from Change text so that legacy PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh base standard for ordering IE STAs can Probe Serving APs PRINCIPLE. Doc 07/2314r0. in Probe Response, by and receive all requested duplicating requested IE information elements. appearance to be both numerical and requested order. First inserted paragraph should Qualify the paragraph like the ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE. Ganesh be restricted to STAs with next paragraph is qualified Doc 07/2314r0 dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl "when ed set to true, as legacy STAs dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl have different behavior. ed is true,". The various Radio Create 11.10 Radio ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE. Ganesh Measurement procedures of Measurement, add text Doc 07/2314r0 11.10, 11.11, 11.12 and 11.13 requiring should all be subheads under a dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl single 11.10 Radio ed to be true, and when Measurement clause, and all dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl procedures cause B12 in the ed is true, then Capability Information field to dot11RegulatoryClassesRequir be set to 1. Annex A.4.3 CF13 ed is true, should point to 11.10, not dot11SpectrumManagementIm 220.127.116.11 plemented is true, dot11MultiDomainCapabilityEn abled is true. Renumber existing 11.10, 11.11, 11.12 and 11.13 as 11.10.1, 11.10.2, 11.10.3, 11.10.4 and change Annex A.4.3 CF13 References to add 11.10. The various Radio Create 11.10 Radio ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE. Ganesh Measurement procedures of Measurement, add text Doc 07/2314r0 11.10, 11.11, 11.12 and 11.13 requiring all depend on MultiDomain dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl Capability, Spectrum ed to be true, and when Management Capability and dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl Regulatory Classes, yet no ed is true, then statements about related MIB dot11RegulatoryClassesRequir entities are made. Such ed is true, statements should be made at dot11SpectrumManagementIm a higher level than each plemented is true, procedure or within each dot11MultiDomainCapabilityEn procedure. abled is true. Determine when dot11SpectrumManagementR equired should be true. Renumber existing 11.10, 11.11, 11.12 and 11.13 as 11.10.1, 11.10.2, 11.10.3, 11.10.4 Is the amendment text Determine whether ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE. Ganesh complete if dot11MultiDomainCapabilityEn Doc 07/2314r0 dot11MultiDomainCapabilityEn abled is false and abled is false and dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl ed is true is a normal operating ed is true? I don't think so - see condition, and if not, then my comments on 18.104.22.168 and remove this change. 11.10. If setting dot11RadioMeasurementEnabl ed true also sets dot11MultiDomainCapabilityEn abled true, then this change is not necessary. Max Transmit Power definition Add normative text in 11.13 PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh is incorrect, as it does not about use of multiple PRINCIPLE. Text inserted in include multiple power limits onemissions masks on the same 22.214.171.124. See Doc 07/2314r0. the same frequency, e.g. frequency, or remove 4.9425 GHz. measurement pilots (as specified in e.g. 07/2158r1). "A STA shall return only the Add a statement to clarify the PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh information elements that it response behavior when none PRINCIPLE. Doc 07/2314r0. supports." of the requested IEs are Suppose that the STA does not supported by the STA. support any of the IEs in the request. Should it generate an empty response? Or ignore the entire request? I believe that the empty response is the correct behavior. [The statement that was removed from this paragraph assumed that a response would still be required. By removing the last line of the paragraph (lines 33-34), the paragraph seems to be more about ignoring IEs.] The change to the use of the Remove the change that PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh Request IE in the probe allows duplication of IEs other PRINCIPLE. Doc 07/2314r0. response is incorrect. The than those specified in the change allows the response to original text that is marked to include "any" IEs in two be deleted. locations in the response. This is a significant change to the material added by 802.11d and duplicates a number of IEs that were not previously duplicated. This change can lead to two APs, one of which implements 802.11k, to respnd to the same Request IE in very different ways. This has the potential to break previously compliant implementations of 802.11d. The deletion of this text leads Reinstate the deleted text. PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh to potential interoperability PRINCIPLE. Reinstate the problems with previously deleted text and moved the compliant implementations of text to clause 126.96.36.199.1. See 802.11d. Document 07/2314r0. Clause 7 is not the place for replace "shall be" with "is" PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh normative language in the PRINCIPLE. Doc 07/2314r0. description of the frame Definition moved to 188.8.131.52 content The duplication of information Delete the paragraph PROPOSED ACCEPT IN Ganesh elements is not necessary, as specifying the duplication of PRINCIPLE. Move all they can already be found in information elements in the normative paragraphs from the probe response. probe response 184.108.40.206 to 11.1.3 (Move P11, Lines 19-34 to 11.1.3). Add text to indicate that if the Requested Elements IE in the corresponding Probe Request includes elements that are part of the Probe Response (listed in Table-15), the Probe Response will not duplicate them. See Doc 07/2314r0. The text explains how an The text should be changed to Ganesh "associated STA" requests a remove "associated" from neighbour report. 11.11.1, and rely on 11.3 to However, it does not address limit use to associated STAs the case of an unassociated STA, although I suspect the intent is that an unassociated STA should not be able to make a request. This assumption is consistent with the text in 11.3 There are too many varied Add a capabilities field so that Ganesh procedures here. It is unlikely each procedure/report may be that implementations will seperately indicated and/or implement all of the negotiated. For negotiation, I procedures. Each of the envisioning an AP with limited supported procedures/reports resources (e.g. memory) should be seperately indicated where the client could pick and negotiated which few values to have monitored.
Pages to are hidden for
"Comments"Please download to view full document