Hello Xiaoming,
First of all, let me apologize for not being able to attend last week’s F2F mtg. That said, I have been reviewing 11-13/0433r1 and have a few questions if you don’t mind:
1)
Slide 11 seems to imply that association, RSNA, etc., has to be redone every time a channel split takes place. Do you expect that once a channel split is done, that it would be long-lived?
2)
A follow up question to question (1) above is whether you also expect to have usages of a small channel that are short-lived. In other words, a pair of devices may always rely on the large channel for control and management information
(e.g., BTI, A-BFT, ATI), and only switch to using a small channel when data transmission during the DTI is needed.
a.
The main advantages of doing this include:
i. Complexity is much lower, since there is no need to have back-to-back NPs (which can be quite complex to implement), distributed synchronization, increased overhead due to
additional BHI over each small channel, etc.
ii. There is no need to require association, RSNA, etc., once a channel split is done. In other words, this would still rely on the same PCP and PBSS.
b.
Has this been considered? Do you believe this would be simpler and should be supported by 11aj devices?
3)
Upon a decision to split a channel, how does a non-PCP/non-AP STA that was not the one issuing the Channel Split Request frame decide to which small channel to switch to?
4)
Has any work been done to look at whether the BF done for a large channel is valid in a small channel? In other words, does a pair of STAs have to re-do BF and potentially hold to sets of BF weights for the large and small channel?
5)
Assuming that the typical length of a BI on a large channel is 100ms, do you have any estimation on the length of a SBBI?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Regards,
Carlos.
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.