March 2007doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0459r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2007-03-14
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Lee Armstrong / Armstrong Consulting, Inc. / 132 Fomer Road
Southampton, MA01073 / 617-620-1701 /
CIDs / Commenters: / Clauses: / Addressed By: / Original Date Prepared
32, 33l 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50 / Chaplin, Engwer, Ketchum, Rosdahl, Roy, Sanwalka, Eastlake, Gast, Hinsz, Marshall, Myles, Stanley, Schylander, Yee / 3 / L. Armstrong / 3-14-07
- Comments
Definitions refer to “this amendment”, circular references, and lack of clarity. Specific comments are:
"conforms to the MAC and PHY requirements specified in this amendment." This amendment does not exist as a separate referenceable entity once it is incorporated into the base specification. Referring to "this amendment" is essentially meaningless.
References to "this ammendment" are by definition transitory (since the ammendment becomes a part of the whole standard).
Definition of "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE)" is self-referential. Should not refer to "this ammendment".
The Definition for WAVE may not refer to "admendment".
Suggest changing: "Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE): The mode of operation of a station that conforms to the MAC and PHY requirements specified in this amendment." to read:
There are all kinds of things wrong with this definition. Firstly, it conflicts with the acronym abbreviation below. Secondly, is this a definition of WAVE or "WAVE mode" as used later. What does this definition mean when it gets integrated into the full 802.11 standard and there is no "this ammendment".
This amendment will later be rolled into the base 802.11 document. This it is improper to say "… specified in this amendment".
It seems inappropriate to refre to MAC and PHY requirements in "this amendment." At some point, the amendment will be incorporated into an overall standard and it will not be clear what protocol features are contained in "this amendment."
The phrase "in this amendment" does not make sense in the context of a standard that will be rolled into one parent document.
once incorporated into the standard, it won't be an amendment any more
The text includes, "in this amendment"However, this will make no sense when the amendment is "rolled up"
"Specified in this amendment" while accurate, will not be accurate when the amendment is rolled-up into the base standard
The term cooperating is unclear. The terms provider and user are undefined.
The provider station is enough to establish a WBSS, a user station is not neccessary
The definition of WBSS is circular and inaccurate. Isn't it allowed for a WBSS to contain just a WBSS provider?
The definition of WBSS is circular and inaccurate. Isn't it allowed for a WBSS to contain just a WBSS provider?
- Commenter’s Suggested Remedy (If appropriate):
Multiple in general stating that the problems should be fixed with none actually providing a suitable definition (some suggestions are only partial fix).
- Background, Explanation, Discussion, etc.:
Accepted
- Recommended Resolution of the Comment:
Change the definitions to:
3.p1 WAVE basic service set (WBSS): AWAVE service provider transmitting service announcements which may or may not be joined by one or more service users.
3.p2 WAVE service information (WSI): A WSI contains information regarding WAVE services being
offered. It is a field in a WAVE Announcement action frame.
3.p3 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE): The mode of operation that a station enters when the dot11WAVEServicesRequired OBJECT-TYPE
in the MIB is set to true.
- Motion (if technical and/or significant):
(And instructions to the editor.)
Move to accept comments32, 33l 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50 and instruct the editor to implement the recommended resolution.
Motion by: ______Date: ______
Second: ______
Approve: / Disapprove: / Abstain:Clause 3 Comment Resolutionpage 1Lee Armstrong, Armstrong Consulting, Inc.