September 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2382r0
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2007-09-10
Author(s):
Name / Affiliation / Address / Phone / email
Peter Ecclesine / Cisco Systems / 170 W. Tasman Dr., San Jose, CA 95134 / 408-527-0815 /
Introduction
Interpretation of a Motion to Adopt
A motion to approve this submission means that the editing instructions and any changed or added material are actioned in the TGy Draft. This introduction, is not part of the adopted material.
Editing instructions formatted like this are intended to be copied into the TGy Draft (i.e. they are instructions to the 802.11 editor on how to merge the TGy amendment with the baseline documents).
TGy Editor: Editing instructions preceded by “TGy Editor” are instructions to the TGy editor to modify existing material in the TGy draft. As a result of adopting the changes, the TGy editor will execute the instructions rather than copy them to the TGy Draft.
Summission Note: Notes to the reader of this submission are not part of the motion to adopt. These notes are there to clarify or provide context.
Clauses 4, 7 and 10
CIDs: 3003, 3061, 3158, 3159 and 3160
Discussion:
In 11y/D4.0:
3003 / 4 / 2 / 18 / T / Y / The acronym LCI is used everywhere and is not explained / Add expansion for LCIComment 3003 requests that LCI be added to clause 4 acrynoms.
Comment Resolution: “11k D8.0 has added it.”
Propose Reject Comment 3003
3061 / 7.4.1 / 13 / 32 / T / N / Text is not new for D4.0, but it is a problem: It has been established by Tgma, probably incorrectly, that Spectrum Mgmt frames are not always class 1 frames. This means that if the DSE action frames are to be transported across BSS boundaries, a new action category is required. See TGn draft D2.06, which includes a new Public Action category. There may be a fight to see which tg gets this frame... / Create/insert/use a new action category "public" which will then hold the DSE action frames to allow them to be passed among BSSs as class 1 frames at all times. See 11-07-0614r10, which was adopted by TGn, and see TGn draft d2.06.Proposed Comment Resolution: “The 11y use of Action frames include being transported beyond a BSS. If 11n D2.06 breaks the use of Spectrum Management action frames in State 1, comments to 11n will cause their repair. 11y does not address security issues like the one described in 07/0614r10.”
Proposed Reject Comment 3061.
3158 / 10.3.36.1.2 / 26 / 48 / T / Y / VendorSpecificInfo element is not included in 7.4.1.6. I don’t understand why it should be included here. / Remove VendorSpecificInfo.3159 / 10.3.36.1.4 / 27 / 19 / T / Y / VendorSpecificInfo element is not included in 7.4.1.6. I don’t understand why it should be included here. / Remove VendorSpecificInfo. Remove VendorspecificInfor throughout 10.3.36.
3160 / 10.3.37.1.2 / 32 / 18 / T / Y / I don’t understand why VendorSpecificInfo should be included here. / Remove VendorspecificInfor throughout 10.3.37.
Commenter notes VendorSpecificInfo is present in clause 10 and not in clause 7. Proposed Comment Resolution: Comments 3158, 3159 “VendorSpecificInfo set by SME, just like CSA 7.4.1.5 and 10.3.15.1” Comment 3160 “Specifically is needed in situations where regulatory requirements differ from the LCIDSE that is being standardized. VendorSpecificInfo set by SME, just like CSA 7.4.1.5 and 10.3.15.1.”
Propose Reject Comments 3158, 3159 and 3160.
Proposed Resolution:
Reject based on discussion in 07/2yyyr0: 3003, 3061, 3158, 3159 and 3160
Submission page 1 Peter Ecclesine, Cisco Systems