MSDU header, however the MSDU header is not always in a MPDU, due to fragmentation; etc.If 11ah really needs MPDU level classification for convinceable reasons, then it can introduce an additional classification, i.e., MPDU classification, and leave the current MSDU classificaiton unchanged. 754 TCLAS was Language Revised - originally defined to such a way IEEE classify "traffic" as in 802.11mc rather than comment. Draft 1.6 individual Frame already litrally in my updated understanding, those hence it is not change for radical if TCLAS as supporting Frame classification IEEE 802.11 is defined only for MAC header S1G(11ah). parameters of frame classifier type. TGah editor removes a traffic classification (TCLAS) from 3.1. Proposed Clause Comment Resolution Change 617 "Frames Rejected- transmitted This is an over the first invalid hop and comment. second hop Question is are not an separated appropriate by SIFS." It comment. is not clear And, the which SIFS commenter is should say
MSDU header, however the MSDU header is not always in a MPDU, due to fragmentation; etc.If 11ah really needs MPDU level classification for convinceable reasons, then it can introduce an additional classification, i.e., MPDU classification, and leave the current MSDU classificaiton unchanged. 754 TCLAS was originally defined to classify "traffic" rather than individual Frame litrally in my understanding, hence it is not radical if TCLAS as Frame classification is defined only for S1G(11ah). Language such a way as in comment. Revised - IEEE 802.11mc Draft 1.6 already updated those change for supporting IEEE 802.11 MAC header parameters of frame classifier type. TGah editor removes a traffic classification (TCLAS) from 3.1. Clause Comment Proposed Change Resolution 617 "Frames transmitted over the first hop and second hop are separated by SIFS." It is not clear which SIFS is Rejected- This is an invalid comment. Question is not an appropriate comment. And, the commenter should say
11-13-1087-00-00ah-cc9-miscellaneous-comment-resolution.docx