CID Clause Page Line Comment Proposed Change Resolution 13017 482 19 In Table 28-43, the Modify the class B Rejected. minimum requirement for requirement for absolute transmit power absolute transmit Defining Class B accuracy of class B device power accuracy as device is for low-cost being +/- 9dB is extremely suggested in the devices which may not loose. I could understand +/- comment. be a good choice to 6 dB, but here we are group Class B device talking about almost 10 dB with Class A device of tolerance in both for MU transmissions. directions. What kind of Thereofer +/-9dB is device would pass any certification/regulation defined for such (coexistence) tests with purpose. such loose requirements? I think the purpose of the specifications is to give reasonable targets and not low-end values. 12104 28.3.19 496 31 "For tests in this subclause Clarify. At minimum, Rejected. ...". This is mysterious. add at the beginning There are many *normative of the clause There is no need to statements* in this "Except for the CCA clarify. The subclause; are we supposed sensitivity subclause description of the to understand that each of (28.3.19.6) ...". subclasue is similar to these *normative 11ac and the statements* is equivalent to description does not a *test*? For example (in cause problems in the fact, in particular) are the tests. The CCA sensitivity requirements in 28.3.19.6 inconsistence caused included in these "tests'? by only change in N.B. It would be entirely 11ax brings more unsatisfactory to resolve this confusion to the tests. comment with a statement If the commentor that this language is already wants to change them present in the baseline. Yes, systematically, he/she this language was included should provide in 11ac. But prior to 11ac, it detailed proposals to wasn't part of the baseline, 11md. and if it was in order then to alter the pre-existing baseline, then it's in order now to undo the mischief 11ac introduced.
CID Clause Page Line Comment Proposed Change Resolution 13017 482 19 In Table 28-43, the minimum requirement for absolute transmit power accuracy of class B device being +/- 9dB is extremely loose. I could understand +/- 6 dB, but here we are talking about almost 10 dB of tolerance in both directions. What kind of device would pass any certification/regulation (coexistence) tests with such loose requirements? I think the purpose of the specifications is to give reasonable targets and not low-end values. Modify the class B requirement for absolute transmit power accuracy as suggested in the comment. Rejected. Defining Class B device is for low-cost devices which may not be a good choice to group Class B device with Class A device for MU transmissions. Thereofer +/-9dB is defined for such purpose. 12104 28.3.19 496 31 "For tests in this subclause ...". This is mysterious. There are many *normative statements* in this subclause; are we supposed to understand that each of these *normative statements* is equivalent to a *test*? For example (in fact, in particular) are the CCA sensitivity requirements in 28.3.19.6 included in these "tests'? N.B. It would be entirely unsatisfactory to resolve this comment with a statement that this language is already present in the baseline. Yes, this language was included in 11ac. But prior to 11ac, it wasn't part of the baseline, and if it was in order then to alter the pre-existing baseline, then it's in order now to undo the mischief 11ac introduced. Clarify. At minimum, add at the beginning of the clause "Except for the CCA sensitivity subclause (28.3.19.6) ...". Rejected. There is no need to clarify. The description of the subclasue is similar to 11ac and the description does not cause problems in the tests. The inconsistence caused by only change in 11ax brings more confusion to the tests. If the commentor wants to change them systematically, he/she should provide detailed proposals to 11md.