termionology / used - Discussion: the minimal wording is in line with text frame format is copied found in IEEE 802.11 from IEEE 802.11 Revmc REVmc. Based on this draft. The commenter argument, the proposed should raise the issue in change was rejected. 11mc. It looks like that awas misleading the meaning TGah has added the text of the minimal frame (respectively changed the format. paragraph of the baseline) that was commented on in the previous comment. Hence the comment was valid. TGah editor replaces PV1 the “For minimal frame format” The fact that 11mc used with “”. unspecific, unclear, or errorneous wording is not a justification for 11ah to repeat the text and claim that changes to this new text, added by 11ah, should be made in 11mc. Hence, the comment was not properbly addressed. 6018 The resolution for CID Accept the proposed Revised- 5454 in document change per previous I agree in principle. comment According to the 802.11 Editorial Style Guide, the use of of <field> field” is deprecated. So states that the the following should not termionology / used be used: wording is in line with text STA that received an “A found in IEEE 802.11 MPDU with the of the REVmc. Based on this Retry subfield of the argument, the proposed Frame Control field equal change was rejected. to 1 shall determine if the MPDU is a duplicate using the duplate cache.” TGah has added the text As suggested by the (respectively changed the commenter of CID 5454 paragraph of the baseline) in change the that was commented on in wording as the following. the previous comment. Hence the comment was TGah editor valid. On page 308 line 37 replace "An AP with a value of true for
termionology / used wording is in line with text found in IEEE 802.11 REVmc. Based on this argument, the proposed change was rejected. TGah has added the text (respectively changed the paragraph of the baseline) that was commented on in the previous comment. Hence the comment was valid. The fact that 11mc used unspecific, unclear, or errorneous wording is not a justification for 11ah to repeat the text and claim that changes to this new text, added by 11ah, should be made in 11mc. Hence, the comment was not properbly addressed. - Discussion: the minimal frame format is copied from IEEE 802.11 Revmc draft. The commenter should raise the issue in 11mc. It looks like that awas misleading the meaning of the minimal frame format. TGah editor replaces “For PV1 the minimal frame format” with “”. 6018 The resolution for CID 5454 in document states that the termionology / used wording is in line with text found in IEEE 802.11 REVmc. Based on this argument, the proposed change was rejected. TGah has added the text (respectively changed the paragraph of the baseline) that was commented on in the previous comment. Hence the comment was valid. Accept the proposed change per previous comment Revised- I agree in principle. According to the 802.11 Editorial Style Guide, the use of of <field> field” is deprecated. So the following should not be used: “A STA that received an MPDU with the of the Retry subfield of the Frame Control field equal to 1 shall determine if the MPDU is a duplicate using the duplate cache.” As suggested by the commenter of CID 5454 in change the wording as the following. TGah editor On page 308 line 37 replace "An AP with a value of true for
11-15-0400-01-00ah-lb207-mac-miscellaneous-comment-resolution-part2.docx