worth anything. In a dense environment in which some devices follow the recommendation and others do not, the "quiet period" will actually be quite noisy. So what's the point? Apart from that the mechanism, even if it worked, would allow devices to make arbitrary reservations of the medium without a requirement for actually using it, and without a method of canceling unused quiet periods; even if this worked, it shouldn't be allowed. It is not enough to say that this mechanism might be useful in some circumstances; the question is whether it is useful *enough* to include in the draft? This is already a very bloated amendment and we should take the opportunity of deleting marginal modes. interference when there are peer-to-peer operations in the HE BSS. The protocol is not meant to be deterministic or guaranteed. The protocol would do no harm to BSS operation even if no STA volunteered to stay silent in a quiet time period." After further discussion with the commenter, the commenter agrees to submit a contribution to addressing his concern. 323.14 The second sentence in the 1st paragraph of section 27.16.4.1 is redundant and can be removed. It captures the same information as the preceeding sentence. Delete the 2nd sentence in the 1st paragraph of 27.16.4.1 Rejected: The two sentences are trying to describe the behaviors of two types of STAs. The first sentence is to make it clear that a STA participating the specific peer-to-peer operation can send. The second sentence is to make it clear that a STA not participating the specific peer-to-peer operation should not send but it is not a “shall” requirement. As discussed before, the intent of the feature is to reduce the possibility of interference. 11870 323.21 Reference to field name is not consistent in this section. It should be QTP Support As in comment Accept: The “field” is not necessary and is deleted. TGax editor, please make changes as shown in document 11-18/0444r2 under CID 11870 12212 323.18 " high priority"is ambiguous. Suggest to explain Revised:
which AC could participate in contention. Agree with the comment. The “if ..” sentene is redundant and is deleted. TGax editor, please make changes as shown in document 11-18/444r2 under CID 12212 11161 324.05 CCA rules are referred to once in the D2.0. A clause reference is missing of which rules to follow for HE STA during a Quiet Time Period. Add a Note3 where CCA rules are defined for HE STA e.g., clause 27.16.4.2 and or other relevant clauses in the draft. Revised: Agree with the comment and the text is revised to make it more clear. TGax editor, please make changes as in document 11-18/444r2 under CID 11161 11361 323.27 Fix references to different Quiet Time Period elements. There is only one element (call Quiet Time Period Setup) and the Control field identifies if this is a request, response or setup flavor of the element. Similarly, there is only Quiet Time Period action frame and the content (i.e., flavor of the Quiet element) determines whether it is a request, response or setup frame. Fix all instances in this section (including fig 27-13) to refer to the correct element and frame name. Add spec text to make reference to the Control field in the element to the type of and procedure. Revised: The text is revised accordingly TGax editor, please make changes as shown in document 11-18/444r2 under CID 11361 11871 324.45 Repetitive use of a word in the same sentence Reword the 2nd sentence in the note as: "The mitigation Accepted: TGax editor, please make changes as shown in document 11-18/444r2 under CID 11871