CID Clause Page Line Type Comment Proposed Change 606 9.2.4.6a 27 44 T Your table 9-18e simply change the RDG/More PPDU is reference in the text identical (with one minor paragraph from table difference) to an existing 9-18e to table 9-11 baseline table 9-11 and remove your RDG/More PPDU - wow! table 9-18e, i.e. you You cannot copy something should simply refer to completely and then have the existing field with two references to the same the same name, since name! the definitions are identical, unless the thing about Duration is needed, but I doubt it Proposed resolution: Revised Remove the copied definition in 11aj and refer to the existing subfield in IEEE 802.11 spec as follows: of the CMMG Control field RDG/More PPDU subfield is defined in Table 9-11. “The The RDG/More PPDU subfield of the CMMG Control field is interpreted differently depending on whether it is transmitted by an RD initiator or an RD responder, as defined in Table9-18e (RDG/More PPDU subfield values) ” CID Clause Page Line Type Comment Proposed Change 607 33 42 T Again, I think that you As stated in the should be pointing to the comment. Someone existing subfields in the should make an baseline that have the same official enquery to definitions and names. the 802.11 editor in chief as to whether it is ok to reuse names like this. Proposed resolution: Rejected TGaj consulted WG editor on this issue. The result is as follows: a field has an individual entry in 9.4.1, there would not create something with the same name “Where and a different definition.
CID Clause Page Line Type Comment Proposed Change 606 9.2.4.6a 27 44 T Your table 9-18e RDG/More PPDU is identical (with one minor difference) to an existing baseline table 9-11 RDG/More PPDU - wow! You cannot copy something completely and then have two references to the same name! simply change the reference in the text paragraph from table 9-18e to table 9-11 and remove your table 9-18e, i.e. you should simply refer to the existing field with the same name, since the definitions are identical, unless the thing about Duration is needed, but I doubt it Proposed resolution: Revised Remove the copied definition in 11aj and refer to the existing subfield in IEEE 802.11 spec as follows: “The RDG/More PPDU subfield of the CMMG Control field is defined in Table 9-11. The RDG/More PPDU subfield of the CMMG Control field is interpreted differently depending on whether it is transmitted by an RD initiator or an RD responder, as defined in Table9-18e (RDG/More PPDU subfield values) ” CID Clause Page Line Type Comment Proposed Change 607 33 42 T Again, I think that you should be pointing to the existing subfields in the baseline that have the same definitions and names. As stated in the comment. Someone should make an official enquery to the 802.11 editor in chief as to whether it is ok to reuse names like this. Proposed resolution: Rejected TGaj consulted WG editor on this issue. The result is as follows: “Where a field has an individual entry in 9.4.1, there would not create something with the same name and a different definition.
11-17-0087-00-00aj-proposed-resolution-to-cid-601-607-609-616-and-623-on-tgaj-d4-0-in-lb226.docx