what the previous para *really really* meant. Such reassurance should be unnecessary if the previous para is written *really really* clearly enough. Discussion Control Wrapper operation “9.10 A STA supporting the HT Control that receives a Control Wrapper frame shall process it as though it received a frame of the subtype of the wrapped frame. NOTE—A STA supporting the HT Control field can reset the NAV set by a wrapped RTS frame following the rules defined in 9.3.2.4 (Setting and resetting the NAV).” So, is the Note stating the obvious? Obviously it is to the commenter, but then he is probably cleverer than the average mere mortal who reads this Standard. I suppose that in this case I would say that the NOTE is much more an example than a note. Two options come to mind: A Delete the NOTE (as proposed by commenter), i.e. ACCEPT – B Change NOTE into an example i.e. REVISE – STA supporting the HT Control field that receives a Control Wrapper frame shall process it as though it “A For example, received a frame of the subtype of the wrapped frame. a STA supporting the HT Control field can reset the NAV set by a wrapped RTS frame following the rules defined in 9.3.2.4 (Setting and resetting the NAV).” Straw Poll / Discussion Proposed resolution: Accept Identifiers Comment Proposed change CID 5125 "shall set the +HTC Support subfield " - there Change "+HTC" to "+HTC-HT". is no such subfield Stephens, Adrian Make similar changes at 1397.41 9.9 1308.25 Discussion Agreed (see 883.44) ACCEPT Identifiers Comment Proposed change CID 5124 "For or A-MSDUs belonging to the service Either remove "when the receiver is class of QoSNoAck when the receiver is a a QoS STA", or add the missing Stephens, Adrian QoS STA" third condition stated in the 9.8 comment. 1308.17 Either there is a third condition to follow this one "service class of QoSNoAck and the receiver is not a QoS STA" or the constraint
what the previous para *really really* meant. Such reassurance should be unnecessary if the previous para is written *really really* clearly enough. Discussion “9.10 Control Wrapper operation A STA supporting the HT Control that receives a Control Wrapper frame shall process it as though it received a frame of the subtype of the wrapped frame. NOTE—A STA supporting the HT Control field can reset the NAV set by a wrapped RTS frame following the rules defined in 9.3.2.4 (Setting and resetting the NAV).” So, is the Note stating the obvious? Obviously it is to the commenter, but then he is probably cleverer than the average mere mortal who reads this Standard. I suppose that in this case I would say that the NOTE is much more an example than a note. Two options come to mind: A – Delete the NOTE (as proposed by commenter), i.e. ACCEPT B – Change NOTE into an example i.e. REVISE “A STA supporting the HT Control field that receives a Control Wrapper frame shall process it as though it received a frame of the subtype of the wrapped frame. For example, a STA supporting the HT Control field can reset the NAV set by a wrapped RTS frame following the rules defined in 9.3.2.4 (Setting and resetting the NAV).” Straw Poll / Discussion Proposed resolution: Accept Identifiers Comment Proposed change CID 5125 Stephens, Adrian 9.9 1308.25 "shall set the +HTC Support subfield " - there is no such subfield Change "+HTC" to "+HTC-HT". Make similar changes at 1397.41 Discussion Agreed (see 883.44) ACCEPT Identifiers Comment Proposed change CID 5124 Stephens, Adrian 9.8 1308.17 "For or A-MSDUs belonging to the service class of QoSNoAck when the receiver is a QoS STA" Either there is a third condition to follow this one "service class of QoSNoAck and the receiver is not a QoS STA" or the constraint Either remove "when the receiver is a QoS STA", or add the missing third condition stated in the comment.
11-15-1249-03-000m-resolutions-for-adrian-mac-comments.docx