| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Laurent, Please see below. Joseph From: Cariou, Laurent <laurent.cariou@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Joe, See below Thanks Laurent From: Joseph Levy <Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Laurent, I have a few questions:
[LC] you need an initial power state to start with. Baseline defines it exactly this way:
We can signal it in the frame exchanges (setup, …), but it feels like a lot of burden and over-design for something that happens very infrequently. [JL] – I don’t see any burden or over-design related to using the existing PS bit to set the PS state using legacy procedures. What burden and over-design are you concerned about?
[LC] sorry I’m not sure I understand well the question here. The main mode of TID mapping we see is the default mode where all links are enabled (TIDs mapped to all links). In that situation, based on what we
agreed, the STA just has to wake up in a particular link to operate on that link. There is no need for specific signaling. That’s why the initial mode we talk about here will happen only once in this case (during multi-link setup) [JL} If all the links are enabled, doesn’t it mean that they are all active? I thought you were proposing that all links except for the link used to set-up MLD on would be in PS mode (doze), and the STA would need to either signal to
the AP that it was in active mode for the link or the AP would need to wait for a time period when the STA is scheduled to be in the active state, before the AP could use the link to send the STA PPDUs. While it is true that all the STA needs to do is send
a PPDU with the PS bit set to active state for the link to be active, this still requires a PPDU transmission by the STA before the AP can use the link for transmissions. Why not simply allow the link to default to the active state? As I stated above if
the AP and STA just went through an MLD setup exchange, wouldn’t the AP and STA both want to use the MLD links established?
[LC] that question goes way beyond the debate on that presentation. Even for single radio devices, it is very advantageous to be able to setup multiple links, and move from one link to the other as smoothly as
possible and exploit load variations on all the links to improve throughput/latency. [JL] You seem to be using MLD to provide a means of providing fast (smooth) transition between links, how does this relate to the current fast transition capabilities in 802.11 – what are the advantages of using MLD to make these transitions
instead of using the legacy capability?
more efficient to only use multi-link connections when they are required/desired?
[LC] again your question here is not for the SP/presentation but for multilink in general. But even if you setup multiple links, you can decide to operate on one of them all the time, and only use other links
when required/desired.. [JL] True this question is beyond the SP/presentation and is addressing multilink in general – but in my opinion it is critical to have an answer to this question before I can decide if the proposed default state is appropriate. I don’t
want to make limiting decision now before I know how we will be using multi-link. Any thoughts on this general question would be very helpful to me in understanding the impact of my vote on this straw poll.
Regards, Joseph From: Cariou, Laurent <laurent.cariou@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi all, Q/A were stopped at the end of last 11be MAC call, for the contribution on power save state after enablement. I can answer your questions here if there are still remaining ones. Thanks, Laurent To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 |