5911 James Yee 94.31 The 2nd sentence of the paragraph Delete the sentence. Rejected the – describing the EDCA Parameter Set sentence clarifies that Update Count is a repeat of the it is for MU EDCA description in 9.4.2.29 (802.11-2016) parameters and not and is unnecessary. for EDCA parameters. 5912 Yee 94.30 "same as the field defined in 9.4.1.17 As suggested. Revised agree in – (QoS Info field)" should more principle with the specifically refer to "same as the QoS comment. Include the Info field defined in 9.4.1.17 (QoS proposed changes in Info field) when sent by the AP" doc 204r0. 6462 John Coffey 94.39 Here format is "illustrated" in the If this is intended to be the Revised Agree in – Figure, whereas in most places definition, change "illusrated" to principle with the in the draft, format is "defined" in a "defined". comment. Change figure. Is the present statement to “illustrated” normative or is it an explanatory as in the “defined” restatement of an explicit definition proposed changes in somewhere else? doc 204r0. 6463 John Coffey 94.52 Here format is "illustrated" in the If this is intended to be the Revised Agree in – Figure, whereas in most other places definition, change "illusrated" to principle with the in the draft, format is "defined" in a "defined". comment. Change figure. Is the present statement to “illustrated” normative or is it an explanatory as in the “defined” restatement of an explicit definition proposed changes in somewhere else? doc 204r0. 6464 John Coffey 94.59 Here format is "illustrated" in the If this is intended to be the Revised Agree in – Figure, whereas in most other places definition, change "illusrated" to principle with the in the draft, format is "defined" in a "defined". comment. Change figure. Is the present statement to “illustrated” normative or is it an explanatory as in the “defined” restatement of an explicit definition proposed changes in somewhere else? doc 204r0.
5911 James Yee 94.31 The 2nd sentence of the paragraph describing the EDCA Parameter Set Update Count is a repeat of the description in 9.4.2.29 (802.11-2016) and is unnecessary. Delete the sentence. Rejected – the sentence clarifies that it is for MU EDCA parameters and not for EDCA parameters. 5912 Yee 94.30 "same as the field defined in 9.4.1.17 (QoS Info field)" should more specifically refer to "same as the QoS Info field defined in 9.4.1.17 (QoS Info field) when sent by the AP" As suggested. Revised – agree in principle with the comment. Include the proposed changes in doc 204r0. 6462 John Coffey 94.39 Here format is "illustrated" in the Figure, whereas in most places in the draft, format is "defined" in a figure. Is the present statement normative or is it an explanatory restatement of an explicit definition somewhere else? If this is intended to be the definition, change "illusrated" to "defined". Revised – Agree in principle with the comment. Change “illustrated” to “defined” as in the proposed changes in doc 204r0. 6463 John Coffey 94.52 Here format is "illustrated" in the Figure, whereas in most other places in the draft, format is "defined" in a figure. Is the present statement normative or is it an explanatory restatement of an explicit definition somewhere else? If this is intended to be the definition, change "illusrated" to "defined". Revised – Agree in principle with the comment. Change “illustrated” to “defined” as in the proposed changes in doc 204r0. 6464 John Coffey 94.59 Here format is "illustrated" in the Figure, whereas in most other places in the draft, format is "defined" in a figure. Is the present statement normative or is it an explanatory restatement of an explicit definition somewhere else? If this is intended to be the definition, change "illusrated" to "defined". Revised – Agree in principle with the comment. Change “illustrated” to “defined” as in the proposed changes in doc 204r0.