Ohayou gozaimasu, Mark-san,
OK, then how about:
NOTE—An A-MPDU sent by an AP in
an MU cascading sequence
typically includes, in addition to the acknowledgement and triggering frames, one or more QoS Data frames with ack policy HETP Ack and/or a Management frame soliciting acknowledgement, subject to the
rules in 26.6.
?
A note has a risk on being deleted in the future…
If Liwen and others are comfortable with the above in combination with the change in the first sentence in
26.5.3, I’m fine.
Yoroshiku onegai shimasu.
tomo
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 8:57 PM
To: adachi tomoko(足立
朋子 ○ＲＤＣ□ＩＴ研○ＷＳＬ)
<tomo.adachi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Discussion on MU cascading sequence on Sept 3 call
Ohayou gozaimasu Tomo-san,
My second proposed sentence is meant to explain that DL data/management transmission (that requires acknowledgement) can be built upon the MU cascading sequence.
Ming said that it is a typical case. From the conversation with Liwen and Robert, I think they also think the same.
And by changing the first sentence in 26.5.3 to focus on the essential (acknowledging while triggering further UL transmission), the variation to the sequence should be explained.
So, making it to a note and using
“might” is still weak.
OK, then how about:
NOTE—An A-MPDU sent by an AP in
an MU cascading sequence
typically includes, in addition to the acknowledgement and triggering frames, one or more QoS Data frames with ack policy HETP Ack and/or a Management frame soliciting acknowledgement, subject to the
rules in 26.6.
?
Focusing only at an A-MPDU, DL Data + TF, it is true that it can be transmitted outside MU cascading.
But thinking of the following, the first A-MPDU from the AP is one of the components of the MU cascading sequence.
AP[TF(basic)+Data]
– STAs[BA+Data]
– AP[BA+TF(MU-BAR)+Data] – STAs[BA]
The 3rd A-MPDU from the AP and the previous 2nd A-MPDUs from the STAs are definitely within the MU cascading.
But to let the 2nd A-MPDUs transmitted from the STAs, the 1st A-MPDU from the AP is needed.
This kind of thinking matches with Figure 26-5 in 26.5.3.
I'm not entirely following you here, because in the sequence you gave
there is no "3rd A-MPDU from the AP".
Figure 26-5 suggests that an MU cascading
sequence includes the initial A-MPDU from the AP (even though this does not
include an ack) but does not include the final A-MPDU from the AP (which
has the final acks).
Note that up to
AP[TF(basic)+Data]
– STAs[BA+Data]
you can do this without MU cascading, and if the AP follows this with just an ack,
it's not an MU cascading sequence (correct?).
Yoroshiku onegaishimasu,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High
Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Tomo Adachi
Sent: Tuesday, 8 September 2020 02:42
To: STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Discussion on MU cascading sequence on Sept 3 call
Ohayou gozaimasu to you, Mark-san.
My second proposed sentence is meant to explain that DL data/management transmission (that requires acknowledgement) can be built upon the MU cascading sequence.
Ming said that it is a typical case. From the conversation with Liwen and Robert, I think they also think the same.
And by changing the first sentence in 26.5.3 to focus on the essential (acknowledging while triggering further UL transmission), the variation to the sequence should be explained.
So, making it to a note and using
“might” is still weak.
Focusing only at an A-MPDU, DL Data + TF, it is true that it can be transmitted outside MU cascading.
But thinking of the following, the first A-MPDU from the AP is one of the components of the MU cascading sequence.
AP[TF(basic)+Data]
– STAs[BA+Data]
– AP[BA+TF(MU-BAR)+Data] – STAs[BA]
The 3rd A-MPDU from the AP and the previous 2nd A-MPDUs from the STAs are definitely within the MU cascading.
But to let the 2nd A-MPDUs transmitted from the STAs, the 1st A-MPDU from the AP is needed.
This kind of thinking matches with Figure 26-5 in 26.5.3.
Yoroshiku onegai shimasu.
tomo
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 7:29 PM
To: adachi tomoko(足立
朋子 ○ＲＤＣ□ＩＴ研○ＷＳＬ)
<tomo.adachi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liwen.chu@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Discussion on MU cascading sequence on Sept 3 call
Konbanwa Tomo-san,
I don’t want to change the second proposed sentence into a note.
Although 26.6 refers to tables in 9.7.3, it is not explicitly saying about the bi-directional case.
Note that the aggregation of the acknowledgement and triggering frame is included in the tables in 9.7.3, but it is only for the MU cascading sequence. So, it is the same level with
that.
The downlink data especially in the middle of the sequence together with the acknowledgement and the triggering frames is allowed only for the MU cascading sequence.
I must admit I'm not quite sure what you mean here. What does "same level" mean here?
Yes, DL data + ack + TF is only allowed for MU casc, but that's because ack+TF is only allowed for MU casc, even if there's no DL data.
In contrast, DL data + TF is allowed even if MU casc is not supported.
Would
NOTE—An A-MPDU sent by an AP in
an MU cascading sequence might include, in addition to the acknowledgement and triggering frames, one or more QoS Data frames with ack policy HETP Ack and/or a Management frame soliciting acknowledgement,
subject to the rules in 26.6.
be better for you?
Yoroshiku onegaishimasu,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From:
tomo.adachi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <tomo.adachi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2020 01:29
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
liwen.chu@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Discussion on MU cascading sequence on Sept 3 call
Liwen, Robert,
Please provide your comments (agreeing or objecting to my response below, whatever is fine).
Hello Mark-san,
Welcome back!
For the change in the first sentence, your point makes sense. I’m
fine with
-
Change the first sentence in 26.5.3 MU cascading sequence to
“An MU cascading sequence is a frame exchange sequence between an AP and one or more non-AP STAs in which the AP, within a single PPDU, acknowledges one or more frames
from a STA, and triggers the STA for a further UL transmission."
I’m fine with deleting
“The A-MPDU may contain other MPDUs, subject to the rules in 26.6 (A-MPDU operation in an HE PPDU).”.
But I don’t want to change the second proposed sentence into
a note.
Although 26.6 refers to tables in 9.7.3, it is not explicitly saying about the bi-directional case.
Note that the aggregation of the acknowledgement and triggering frame is included in the tables in 9.7.3, but it is only for the MU cascading sequence. So, it is the same level with
that.
The downlink data especially in the middle of the sequence together with the acknowledgement and the triggering frames is allowed only for the MU cascading sequence.
Best regards,
tomo
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 7:21 PM
To: adachi tomoko(足立
朋子 ○ＲＤＣ□ＩＴ研○ＷＳＬ)
<tomo.adachi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liwen.chu@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Discussion on MU cascading sequence on Sept 3 call
-
Change the first sentence in 26.5.3 MU cascading sequence to
“An MU cascading sequence is a frame exchange sequence between an AP and one or more non-AP STAs in which the AP, within a single PPDU, acknowledges one or more frames
in an UL transmission from a STA, and triggers the STA for a further UL transmission."
I'm basically OK with this, but on reflection maybe I would delete "in an UL
transmission" since a transmission to an AP must by definition be UL, so having
those words sows confusion.
-
Add a sentence,
“The MU cascading sequence may include one or more QoS Data frames with ack policy HTPE Ack and/or Management frame soliciting acknowledgement together with a triggering
frame.”, at the beginning of the paragraph that starts with
“The MU cascading sequence may have a different set of transmitters in HE TB PPDUs
…” in 26.5.3.
I think that if we add such a sentence, we should delete
The A-MPDU may contain other MPDUs, subject to the rules in 26.6 (A-MPDU operation in
an HE PPDU).
in the previous para, since it's basically saying the same thing with
different level of detail. However, it also seems to me that this new
sentence is not anything new, just a reminder of existing normative
material, so I think it should be a:
NOTE—An A-MPDU sent by an AP in
an MU cascading sequence might include one or more QoS Data frames with ack policy HETP Ack and/or a Management frame soliciting acknowledgement, subject to the rules in 26.6.
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High
Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Tomo Adachi
Sent: Friday, 4 September 2020 02:01
To: STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Discussion on MU cascading sequence on Sept 3 call
Hi all,
We had a discussion on the MU cascading sequence on today’s TGax call.
The final direction there was as follows:
-
Change the first sentence in 26.5.3 MU cascading sequence to
“An MU cascading sequence is a frame exchange sequence between an AP and one or more non-AP STAs in which the AP, within a single PPDU, acknowledges one or more frames
in an UL transmission from a STA, and triggers the STA for a further UL transmission."
-
Add a sentence,
“The MU cascading sequence may include one or more QoS Data frames with ack policy HTPE Ack and/or Management frame soliciting acknowledgement together with a triggering
frame.”, at the beginning of the paragraph that starts with
“The MU cascading sequence may have a different set of transmitters in HE TB PPDUs
…” in 26.5.3.
The latter modification was added due to Liwen’s request.
And there were no further comments during the call.
Comments are welcome, especially from those that didn’t attend the call today.
It will be on the agenda again on Sept. 17 call.
Best regards,
tomo
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1