Some feedback from editor September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Some feedback from editor Date: 2009-01-19 Authors: Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Abstract Brief status report of the 802.11s D2.06 September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Abstract Brief status report of the 802.11s D2.06 Brief report on the draft history Report on the global terminology changes Do not use the old terms from now Some editorial errors or inconsistencies found in D2.06 Hopefully we can fix them easily Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Status report January 2009 D2.02 D2.03 D2.04 D2.05 September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Status report D2.02 Issued in Waikoloa by the previous editor Contains most of the changes by July meeting D2.03 Contains all the changes by July (Denver) meeting with some fixes to obvious errors D2.04 Contains most of the changes from September (Waikoloa) meeting, except some unclear resolutions and terminology changes D2.05 Contains all the changes from November (Dallas) meeting, with catch up on the above unclear resolutions which were discussed during the conference calls. Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Status report D2.06 January 2009 September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Status report D2.06 Contains terminology changes with minor editorial fixes. Did not incorporate “ALL” the changes in order to minimize the inconsistencies throughout the draft spec or with the base standard. Rationale for the changes in D2.06: Try to capture the changes as indicated in 11-08/1120r3 except following items: Maintain the table structure of Table 7-8, since the changes are not completed yet. Wait for the further updates on table 7-8, 7-14, 7-15, etc. Replace the “Mesh” or “Mesh network” with “MBSS”, only when the “mesh” is meant to be network by itself. There are many other “mesh” prefix in the draft text, and should keep the consistencies. Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Notes on terminology changes September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Notes on terminology changes Please note that TGs has decided to change the following terms: Do not use the old terms in further submission! Mesh header  Mesh Control Unicast  Individually addressed Broadcast/Multicast  Group addressed Mesh network  Mesh BSS (mesh network is defined to be one type of the BSSs) MP, mesh point  mesh STA MAP  mesh AP (do not use the TLA) MPP  portal Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Some potential errors or inconsistencies found in editing D2.06 September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Some potential errors or inconsistencies found in editing D2.06 The definition of “portal” The entity “portal” does not include AP functions in the base standard. TGs should separate the portal and mesh STA in terms of the logical entity. In D2.06, this separation is not present. Suggestion: We should define something like “portal mesh STA” that is a mesh STA collocated with portal. Table 7-4—QoS Control field is not captured from the latest baseline document to TGs. We should use the 11n draft spec as a baseline text. Update the base table of 7-4 to be captured from 11n draft. Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Some potential errors or inconsistencies found in editing D2.06 September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Some potential errors or inconsistencies found in editing D2.06 “MDAOP Reservation Report field”, “MDA Information field”, and “MDA Reply Code field ” are defined under clause 7.3.1, whereas they are referred solely in a single information element. Suggestion: Should be relocated under the 7.3.2.93 MDAOP Setup Reply element, and 7.3.2.94 MDAOP Advertisements element, to keep consistency with other field definitions. In clause 10, some service primitives use “peerMAC (MAC address)” to specify the link instance (peer mesh STA), while other primitives use “Local Link ID”. Do we need this differentiation? It looks better to align with peerMAC if there is no problem in the design context. Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Some potential errors or inconsistencies found in editing D2.06 September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Some potential errors or inconsistencies found in editing D2.06 “11B.3.4.3 State transitions” covers PLM state machines and is updated by some submissions, while figure or table in “11B.5.3.9.3 State transitions” has not been updated. Figure s68 vs Figure s70. May have introduced some inconsistencies... Figure s76 figure does not show the “logical entity” mapping. Suggestion: Update the figure to show the logical entity mapping Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Some potential errors or inconsistencies found in editing D2.06 September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Some potential errors or inconsistencies found in editing D2.06 In “11B.6.5.3.1 At Source mesh STAs”, The sentence (fully acknowledges broadcast) sounds abrupt here. Suggestion: Review this subclause again and modify the text. In 11B.12, there are some description saying “groupcast frame” The meaning of “group address frame” in this clause is different from what is meant in 11B.6.5. (multi-hop broadcast v.s. 1-hop broadcast) Explicitly define multi-hop, 1 hop broadcasting Replace with “group addressed frame” Annex V.1 Overview of Unified Channel Graphs Mesh channel switch has been modified but this clause remains based on the previous mechanism. Review this subclause and modify the text. Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola

Some additional feedbacks... September 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1173r0 January 2009 Some additional feedbacks... As pointed out by CID 1873: There are rules about "which" and "that" specified in the IEEE-SA style guide that are transgressed (e.g. see p83.32). Review all "which" and "that" and adjust use. ("that" is used for conjunction of modifying clauses and doesn't have a comma before it. "which" does have a comma before it - except when it follows a preposition, and when it has a comma before it, it introduces more information, but doesn't logically modify the previous phrase). Please pay some attention for this differentiation defined by the IEEE style guide. Kazuyuki Sakoda, Sony Corporation Tony Braskich, Motorola