IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs MU Comment Resolution, Part 2 Date: 2012-09-19 Author(s): Name Affiliation Address Phone email Jindal Broadcom Corp. njindal@broadcom.com CID Page Comment Proposed Change Resolution 6680 Simone Merlin 50.50 Background: The VHT Compressed Beamforming frame includes the VHT Compressed Beamforming Report (note the capital R) [field] and the MU Exclusive Beamforming Report [field]; the VHT Compressed Beamforming Report (note the capital R) [field] includes the VHT Compressed Beamforming Report information; the MU Exclusive Beamforming Report includes the MU Exclusive Beamforming Report information; moreover there is a VHT Compressed Beamforming report (note the small r and the absence of a qualifier such as field/frame/information), which is never explicitly defined, but it is used as if it was a container for the VHT Compressed Beamforming Report information and MU Exclusive Beamforming Report information.--- All of this makse logically sense (except for the missing explicit definition of the VHT Compressed Beamforming report), but the naming is likely to create headaches to the average reader (including myself). Possible solutions in order of increasing complexity: 1) easiest: define the VHT Compressed Beamforming report; 1+2) give names that are not different only by the capital initial letter but rather help the poor reader. 3) say that the VHT Compressed Beamforming frame includes simply a VHT Compressed Beamforming Report field; the VHT Compressed Beamforming Report includes the VHT Compressed Beamforming Information and the MU Exclusive Beamforming Information (when present). this way there is no need to define VHT Compressed Beamforming report, and MU Exclusive Beamforming Report and the fragmetnation can be simply expressed in terms of the VHT Compressed Beamforming Report field.
CID Page Comment Proposed Change Resolution 6088 Chu 50.65 "VHT Compressed Beamforming report" is not clear. Is it "VHT Compressed Beamforming Report field"? If it is yes, do you need this sentence? Make it clear. REVISED. See resolution of CID 6680. Discussion: This confusion is resolved by the proposed change to CID 6680, by which “VHT Compressed Beamforming report” is changed to “VHT Compressed Beamforming feedback”. CID Page Comment Proposed Change Resolution 6529 Sigurd 52.01 The word "information" is too generic. Use "field" instead Change "The VHT Compressed Beamforming Report information contains ..." to "The VHT Compressed Beamforming Report field contains ..." REJECTED. “Information” is distinct from “field” in this particular case. Discussion: The “VHT Compressed Beamforming Report information” is actually distinct from the “VHT Compressed Beamforming Report The “VHT Compressed Beamforming Report information” is precisely the set of bits described in Table 8-53f, and that set of bits can be contained in a single VHT Compressed Beamforming frame (in the case of no feedback segmentation), or can be contained in multiple VHT Compressed Beamforming frames (in the case of feedback segmentation). The “VHT Compressed Beamforming Report field” is something that is contained in every VHT Compressed Beamforming frame, and thus in the case of feedback segmentation the “VHT Compressed Beamforming Report field” can be a subset of the “VHT Compressed Beamforming Report information”.
CID Commenter Clause Number(C) Page Comment Proposed Change Resolution 6394 Bo Sun 8.4.1.48 51.49 it is not clear about the description of Remaining segments´╝îthe description of subfield"Remaining Segments" is inconsistent with the comment resolution for 3476. Make changes agreed upon in 11/1469r2 Rejected: Changes agreed upon in 11/1469r2 (CID 4667) were over-ridden by the changes in 11/587r2 (in response to CID 4667). Discussion: Changes agreed upon in 11/1469r2 (CID 4667) were over-ridden by the changes in 11/587r2 (in response to CID 4667). The description of how to set the fields of the VHT MIMO Control field are now clearly specified in the final paragraph of 8.4.1.47 (VHT MIMO Control field), so there is no need for the table referred to in 11/1469r2. Proposed Resolution: Rejected CID Commenter Clause Number(C) Page Comment Proposed Change Resolution 6526 Sigurd Schelstraete 8.4.1.47 50.49 Unlike other fields, this section does not state where the VHT MIMO Control field will be used. Add sentence to section: "The VHT MIMO Control field shall always be included in the VHT Compressed Beamforming frame." Revised. After last sentence on 50.42, add sentence "The VHT MIMO Control field is included in every VHT Compressed Beamforming frame (see 8.5.23.2)."
Discussion: The commenter is correct that the purpose and context of this field is not stated here, and explaining that it is always in the VHT Compressed Beamforming Frame would be helpful to the reader. The commenter proposed the word "shall be contained", but "shall" must not be used in clause 8, so "shall" is changed to "is". Note that 8.5.23.2 (VHT Compressed Beamforming frame format) already contains the sentence: "The VHT MIMO Control field is always present in the frame." Proposed Resolution: Revised. last sentence on 50.42, add sentence "The VHT MIMO Control field is included in every VHT Compressed Beamforming frame (see 8.5.23.2 VHT Compressed Beamforming frame format)." CID Commenter Clause Number(C) Page Comment Proposed Change Resolution 6457 Mark RISON 8.4.1.48 51.56 "if it is not the first feedback segment or if the VHT Compressed Beamforming Report field and MU Exclusive Beamforming Report field are not present in the frame." is duplication Change to just "otherwise" Rejected. The text describing the “0” case does add some information, and so should not be replaced with “otherwise”. Discussion: The description of the "0" case does add some information as the “0” case is not just the simple complement of the “1” case, and therefore it seems prudent to keep the definition as-is. Proposed Resolution: Rejected.