June 2011 doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0872r0

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

TGaa 11MEC Report
Date: 2011-06-16
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Adrian Stephens / Intel Corporation /
Peter Ecclesine / Cisco Systems / 170 W. Tasman Dr.,
MS SJ-14-4, San Jose, CA 95134-1706 / +1-408-527-0815 /
Alex Ashley / NDS Ltd / One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, UK / +44 1784 848770 / Aashley at nds dot com

1  Introduction

Draft P802.11aa D5 was submitted for 11MEC by the 802.11aa technical editor, Alex Ashley.

This being the first 11MEC performed, the WG editors Adrian Stephens and Peter Ecclesine undertook the WG editor and WG nominee roles in the process.

We three met and reviewed and updated 11MEC process, making changes as embodied in 11-11/0615r1.

2  Findings

2.1  Numbering of clauses, subclauses, figures, tables and equations

Equation numbers were added to a new tab in document 11-08/0644.

Equation numbers should be shown as <clause>-<item>, e.g. (REVmb D9.0 p 1572):

2.2  Numbering of ANA administered objects

No errors from 11-11/270r4 ANA numbering, TGaa tab were noted in D5.0.

2.3  MIB

In the following comments, the status column has the following meanings:

·  MEC – the change is requested to meet requirements of the proposed 11MEC process

·  Technical – the change addresses a technical error in the MIB, not covered by MEC

·  Editorial – the change addresses an editorial issue in the MIB

P802.11aa D5.0 page.line / Comment / Recommended change / Status
112.5 / the modification to Dot11StationConfigEntry should reflect P802.11ae D3.0, which adds three after dot11BSSBroadcastNullCount / Start changes with last entry of baseline. / Technical
112.60 / ifIndex should be separated from prior text by a blank line, just like REVmb dot11StationConfigEntry (REVmb D8.0 page 1844 line 44) Same comment for D5.0 page 116, line 69. / Editorial
113.33 / missing period after ‘primitive’. / Add period at end of all ‘Changes take effect’ sentences – fourteen places in the MIB. / Editorial
113.50 / missing period after ‘features”’. / Add period at end of all MIB descriptive sentences – (page 116 line 24, page 117 lines 44 and 60, page 118 line 10). / Editorial
115.11 / This line should be separated from prior text by a blank line. / Editorial
117.40 / ‘Changes take’ should begin a new line of text. / Editorial
117.55-57 / This should be a single blank line. / Editorial
117.58 / It is better to say ‘This attribute specifies’ than ‘This attribute shall specify’ as the MIB DESCRIPTION is informative, and clause 10.27.3 page 104 specifies the normative use. / Editorial
118.1, .19 / ‘Changes take’ should begin a new line of text. / Move 4th sentence up to follow 2nd. + additional intro sentence to taste. / Editorial
118.6-7 / This should be a single blank line. / This is a word artefact. Hope to vanish. / Editorial
118.35-38 / The description is poorly worded ( it appears to start with dot11ShortRetryLimit - REVmb D8.0 page 2086 lines 9-11). / reword to “For frames where the DEI subfield has a value of one, this attribute…”. / Editorial
118.51-53 / The description is poorly worded ( it appears to start with dot11LongRetryLimit - REVmb D8.0 page 2086 lines 24-26) / reword to “For frames where the DEI subfield has a value of one, this attribute…”. / Editorial
119.2 / SYNTAX should be (100..255) without extra spaces. / Editorial
119.24, .45 / SYNTAX should be (0..7935) without extra spaces. / Editorial
119.30, .51 / ‘Changes from’ should begin a new line of text. / Editorial
119.59 / Redundant sentence should be removed. / Similar redundancies on page 120, lines 17 and 39 should also be removed. / Editorial
120.2, .24 / SYNTAX should be (0..4294967295) without extra spaces. / Editorial
120.8, .30 / ‘Changes from’ should begin a new line of text. / Editorial
121.23 / Should be ‘duration in increments of 32 us’ rather than ‘duration in 32 us’. / Technical
123.09 / The MODULE-COMPLIANCE statements should come from dot11Compliances / Change to numbers from dot11Compliances. Confirm with ANA, who has reserved two numbers for this use. / MEC

In addition, the 11MEC requirement of compiling the MIB was met, as a compiled version of the MIB was prepared by the .11aa editor prior to the 11MEC process.

This addressed compilation error using REVmb D8.0 + .11s D11 + .11ae as a baseline.

2.4  WG11 style

  1. Figure format
  2. Figure 8-347a
  3. contravenes the style: “Generally frame format figures should be either an “octet aligned” or a “bit aligned” structure. If a mixture of the two is required, it is recommended to break the figure into two or more parts.”
  4. Recommend: redraw as a 24-bit structure and replace Octets row with bit position labels.
  5. Figure 8-403f
  6. Uses dashes to show bit range. Replace with space and position labels at the edges of the box.
  7. Case of true/false
  8. There are 17 TRUEs in the MIB description. These should be lower-cased.
  9. “Set to”. Incorrect use at:
  10. 75.33
  11. Information Elements.
  12. 44 instances of “information element”. All that not quoting the baseline (e.g., headings 8.4.*) should be replaced by “element”.
  13. Word usage
  14. Must. Two musts in annex X. Recommend they are replaced by alternative language.
  15. Will. Recommend replacing future tense with current tense at:
  16. 34.26
  17. 101.36
  18. 101.37 – reword “The subsequent Radio Measurement Report frame contains Beacon Reports for successful measurements”
  19. 105.40
  20. 108.23- Move " the response will be of a different group to the request" to the start of the sentence as “The response may be of a different group to the request,”
  21. 114.39 (performs)
  22. 114.69 (sends)
  23. 118.22 (delays sending)
  24. 121.24 (attempts to)
  25. 121.51 (grammar)
  26. 124.08 (is able to)
  27. 128.24 (will be -> is)
  28. 131.06 (will have -> has)
  29. 131.18 (will -> has been configured to)
  30. 132.06 (will not be -> are not)
  31. Can. Can should be reserved for the meaning “is able to, given the features provided in this standard”
  32. 4.37 (change to might)
  33. 5.10 (might, the standard gives no description on how the AP can schedule its TXOPs, so we do not provide the “ability” that allows the use of “can”.)
  34. 97.06 (might)
  35. 124.08 (might)
  36. 124.12 (might)
  37. 124.18 (might)
  38. 125.02 (might)
  1. 129.39 (Change from " Using the “Overlap” and “Potential Traffic Self” information, the AP can make an informed decision as to the best channel to select" To "An AP might use the “Overlap” and “Potential Traffic Self” information when deciding the best channel to select")
  2. May. May means “is allowed to”, not “is able to”
  3. 5.07 (might)
  4. Shall only.
  5. 97.15. Only in wrong place. (change to "An AP shall not establish both a GCR-SP and an FMS agreement for a group address stream from a single non-AP STA")
  6. Only. Generally only needs to preceed the condition, not the verb.
  7. 61.08. “is only present” -> “is present only when”
  8. 61.15
  9. 112.41
  10. 132.29
  11. 132.30
  1. Clause specific style
  2. Clause 6
  3. 4 “shall”s, which are unnecessary.
  4. 20.1 may -> might.
  5. PICS
  6. CFaa needs to be replaced by the best estimate of the actual number. CF23 appears to be the next available number (REVmb: CF20, +1 for 11s, +1 for 11ae).
  7. 110.12 et seq.
  8. SAP Interfaces
  9. 9.05 shows a .confirm “invalid parameters” primitive. This should be removed.
  10. Locally generated INVALID_PARAMETERS ResultCodes should be removed.
  11. 10.19

2.5  IEEE Standards Style Manual

Homogeneity

  1. Editor’s Notes.

a.  Page vii: REVmb Editor’s Notes appear in italics and say ‘Editor’s Note’(REVmb D8.0 page cxviii). It is recommended, but not required that the 11aa draft follow REVmb practice rather than use ‘EDITORIAL NOTE.’

b.  Page vii, line 12 Tags and reference to (Ed) comments on lines 5 and 6: as these types of comments are not visible in the balloted draft, the explanation of these items on page vii should be hidden so that it is not visible in the balloted draft.

3  IEEE-SA MEC

The draft was submitted to IEEE-SA at the same time as 11MEC. The following email thread (edited for privacy) indicates approval of the draft.

From: Michelle Turner (IEEE-SA)
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:11 PM
Subject: RE: IEEE-SA MEC for P802.11aa D5.0
Thank you! So, then there are no issues so the draft meets all editorial requirements to go to ballot.
*****************************
Michelle Turner
Sr. Program Manager, Document Development
IEEE Standards Activities
From: / "Venkatesan, Ganesh"
Cc:
Date: / 06/07/2011 03:05 PM
Subject: / RE: IEEE-SA MEC for P802.11aa D5.0
My responses inline below.
Cheers --
ganesh
From: Stephens, Adrian P
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: IEEE-SA MEC for P802.11aa D5.0
Hello Michelle,
Please see below.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
From: Michelle Turner
Subject: Re: IEEE-SA MEC for P802.11aa D5.0
Hello Adrian,
I'll save some trees,
[Adrian Stephens]
Ho Ho.
so I can just say what I need to say via email rather than doing the MEC in a word file. I actually have 1 question and one comment.
Question: 802.1Qat-2010 and 802.1Qav-2009 are being added to the reference clause. Both documents have been superseded by IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011. So shouldn't IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011 be added to the reference clause instead. Or if you would prefer to have it and also list the superseded documents we would need to place some type of footnotes on both of the amendments, indicating that they have been incorporated into the revised base.
[Adrian Stephens]
I’ll ask Ganesh (.11aa chair) and Alex (.11aa editor) to comment. I’m assuming that we should refer to the latest document. We should only need to refer to the older standards if we are referencing material that was removed in the revision.
[[gv]] I agree we should be referring to IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011. However since 802.1Q-2011 is a long document, I think we need to specifically call out the relevant clause in 802.1Q-2011 in where they are referred to in P802.11aa.
Comment: If there text, figures, or table that have not been borrowed from another published source, then there is no need to secure copyright permission letters. However, if this is not the case I will need the acceptable letters on file before the draft can go to ballot.
[Adrian Stephens]
I have reviewed the figures. I am not aware of any copyright material.
Again asking Ganesh and Alex to confirm.
[[gv]] None of the text, figures or tables in P802.11aa D5.0 have been borrowed from another published source. No need to secure copyright permission letters.

This should be taken as a recommendation to replace the references to 802.1Qat-2010 and 802.1Qav-2009 with references to the appropriate sections of 802.1Q-2011.

4  Output documents

During this 11MEC process, in addition to this submission, the following documents were updated:

·  11-11/0615r2 – the 11MEC process description

·  11-09/1034r2 – the 802.11 WG style guide

·  11-08/0644r24 – the number alignment working document

5  References

·  11-11-0615r2 – the 11MEC process

·  11-09/1034r2 – the working group style document

·  IEEE Standards Style Manual-2009

Report page 3 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation