the EDCA parameter set element. Zhou Lan Section 27.5.2.1 says "A STA with to true is referred to as an UL MU capable STA.", so an UL MU capable STA is a STA that is capable of supporting UL MU MIMO. However, here in this section, it refers to UL MU MIMO, UL OFDMA, UL OFDMA+MU MIMO. UL OFDMA is a mandatory feature which doesnt need capability indication. So the language should be fixed. fix the language per comment Revised – agree in principle with the comment. Include in the specification the proposed changes in doc . CID Commenter Page Comment Proposed Change Resolution 3244 Albert Petrick 94.56 MUEDCATimer not defined Add definition for MUEDCATimer in clause 3.4 Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations Revised – include the proposed changes defined in doc 3389 Albert Petrick 94.56 MUEDCATimer not defined Add definition for MUEDCATimer in clause 3.4 Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations Revised – include the proposed changes defined in doc 3499 Albert Petrick 94.56 MUEDCATimer not defined Add definition for MUEDCATimer in clause 3.4 Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations Revised – include the proposed changes defined in doc 3830 Albert Petrick 94.56 MUEDCATimer not defined Add definition for MUEDCATimer in clause 3.4 Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations Revised – include the proposed changes defined in doc 3919 Albert Petrick 94.56 MUEDCATimer not defined Add definition for MUEDCATimer in clause 3.4 Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations Revised – include the proposed changes defined in doc 4270 Albert Petrick 94.04 MU EDCA not defined, nor in IEEE 802.11-2016 Change text "MU EDCA" to "Multi-user (MU) EDCA" Rejected – this term is only used to name the element.
5911 James Yee 94.31 The 2nd sentence of the paragraph describing the EDCA Parameter Set Update Count is a repeat of the description in 9.4.2.29 (802.11-2016) and is unnecessary. Delete the sentence. Rejected – the sentence clarifies that it is for MU EDCA parameters and not for EDCA parameters. 5912 James Yee 94.30 "same as the field defined in 9.4.1.17 (QoS Info field)" should more specifically refer to "same as the QoS Info field defined in 9.4.1.17 (QoS Info field) when sent by the AP" As suggested. Revised – in principle with the comment. Include the proposed changes in doc . 6462 John Coffey 94.39 Here format is "illustrated" in the Figure, whereas in most other places in the draft, format is "defined" in a figure. Is the present statement normative or is it an explanatory restatement of an explicit definition somewhere else? If this is intended to be the definition, change "illusrated" to "defined". Revised – in principle with the comment. Change “illustrated” to “defined” as in the proposed changes in doc . 6463 John Coffey 94.52 Here format is "illustrated" in the Figure, whereas in most places in the draft, format is "defined" in a figure. Is the present statement normative or is it an explanatory restatement of an explicit definition somewhere else? If this is intended to be the definition, change "illusrated" to "defined". Revised – Agree in principle with the comment. Change “illustrated” to “defined” as in the proposed changes in doc . 6464 John Coffey 94.59 Here format is "illustrated" in the Figure, whereas in most other places in the draft, format is "defined" in a figure. Is the present statement normative or is it an explanatory restatement of an explicit definition somewhere else? If this is intended to be the definition, change "illusrated" to "defined". Revised – Agree in principle with the comment. Change “illustrated” to “defined” as in the proposed changes in doc .