Re: [ipwave] minor textual issues on channels

[Michelle Wetterwald <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Regarding the new suggested text below, I would rather re-phrase it as:
NEW2:
Prohibition of IPv6 on some channels relevant for IEEE 802.11-OCB,  as
opposed to IPv6 not being prohibited on any channel on which  802.11a/b/g/n
runs; this prohibition may be explicit at higher layer protocols providing
services to the application; these higher layer protocols and prohibition
are specified in related specifications, e.g., in IEEE 1609 documents.
National or regional specifications and regulations need to be considered
as well.
--
This would not restrict to one set of specifications and allow a higher
coverage of the issue. Moreover, it is future-proof and in line with what
was discussed during the meeting in Chicago.

Best, Michelle


2017-05-18 11:39 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
:

>
>
> OLD:
>
>> Prohibition of IPv6 on some channels relevant for the PHY of IEEE
>> 802.11-OCB, as opposed to IPv6 not being prohibited on any channel on
>> which 802.11a/b/g/n runs; at the time of writing, this prohibition is
>> explicit in IEEE 1609 documents.
>>
>
> It was suggested that this is not a PHY prohibition, but rather a higher
> layer protocols providing services to the application.
>
> As such the new text is the following:
>
> NEW:
>
>> Prohibition of IPv6 on some channels relevant for IEEE 802.11-OCB,
>> as opposed to IPv6 not being prohibited on any channel on which
>> 802.11a/b/g/n runs; at the time of writing, this prohibition is
>> explicit at higher layer protocols providing services to the
>> application; these higher layer protocols are specified in IEEE 1609
>>  documents.
>>
>
> End issue.
>
>
>


-- 
Michelle Wetterwald
[e-mail]