under CID 15900 Accepted: The key words for normative TGax editor, please statements are "shall", "should", and make changes as "may". We should avoid introducing shown in document unnecessary variations. Here we have the variation "not recommended". Delete "Other ("Other transmissions are not transmissions under CID 15773 recommended during the period.") are not 15773 176.3 9.4.2.244.2 This is the only context in the entire recommended draft in which something is "not during the recommended". Is this meant to be period." stronger than "should not", or weaker, or the same? And why is the intended behavior even discussed here at all, since it's dealt with comprehensively in clause 27? change "The Accepted: Service Specific Identifier field TGax editor, please indicates HE make changes as STAs in document participated in the peer-to-peer under CID 15635 operation is given preference to transmit frames in the 15635 177 9.4.2.244.3 poor grammar period." to "The Service Specific Identifier field indicates the HE STAs participating in the peer-to-peer operation are given preference to transmit frames in the period." Accepted: "Other transmissions are not TGax editor, please recommended during the period." This make changes as is already stated in 9.4.2.244.2, so Delete "Other shown in document what's the point of repeating it here? transmissions What is the point of stating it in either are not 15774 177.1 9.4.2.244.3 place, since the full functionality is recommended under CID 15774 given in clause 27? And with "shall", during the "should", and "may" being the period." standard and clear options for normative statements, why introduce the variant "not recommended"?
under CID 15900 15773 176.3 9.4.2.244.2 The key words for normative statements are "shall", "should", and "may". We should avoid introducing unnecessary variations. Here we have the variation "not recommended". ("Other transmissions are not recommended during the period.") This is the only context in the entire draft in which something is "not recommended". Is this meant to be stronger than "should not", or weaker, or the same? And why is the intended behavior even discussed here at all, since it's dealt with comprehensively in clause 27? Delete "Other transmissions are not recommended during the period." Accepted: TGax editor, please make changes as shown in document under CID 15773 15635 177 9.4.2.244.3 poor grammar change "The Service Specific Identifier field indicates HE STAs participated in the peer-to-peer operation is given preference to transmit frames in the period." to "The Service Specific Identifier field indicates the HE STAs participating in the peer-to-peer operation are given preference to transmit frames in the period." Accepted: TGax editor, please make changes as in document under CID 15635 15774 177.1 9.4.2.244.3 "Other transmissions are not recommended during the period." This is already stated in 9.4.2.244.2, so what's the point of repeating it here? What is the point of stating it in either place, since the full functionality is given in clause 27? And with "shall", "should", and "may" being the standard and clear options for normative statements, why introduce the variant "not recommended"? Delete "Other transmissions are not recommended during the period." Accepted: TGax editor, please make changes as shown in document under CID 15774
11-18-1855-00-00ax-comments-resolution-27-16-4.docx