Hi
Stéphane,
Thanks for the update. Looks good to me.
Regards,
Rojan
From: BARON Stephane <Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 8:09 PM
To: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Rojan,
Following the feedbacks we received, we created a new revision
11-20-813r3 of the document, to highlight the simplicity of the proposed solution for R1.
This revision is a
joint effort from several contributors, to merge
the two documents dealing with the triggered P2P communications (11-20-871r2
, and
11-20-813r0.), and to present a common view of the solution, capturing the discussion
we had offline and on this reflector.
The straw poll text has been slightly amended to explicitly mention the scope of the solution for R1 (triggered time sharing for a single peer station
associated to the AP), and we added a note to clarify our intentions regarding some related elements that are out of the scope of this joint contribution :
“Note :
- Type of trigger frame is TBD.
- Signaling to the AP of P2P traffic needs, may be based on existing mechanisms (e.g., TSPEC,
a TID value > 7, BSR ..). Exact signaling is TBD.
- Peer STA may not be allowed to use EDCA for some time after being triggered
(e.g., by extending MU-EDCA rules).
“
Best regards.
Stéphane.
From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: vendredi 12 juin 2020 04:37
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Dibakar,
Yes, if you can add such a Note, that would be really helpful.
Regards,
Rojan
From: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 10:17 PM
To: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Rojan,
Thanks a lot for the constructive feedback.
From all the comments so far it seems like we are all aligned that we can have a simple solution for signaling existence of P2P traffic using existing mechanisms or a small
tweak to them. If we run a SP, do you prefer to add a note to emphasize this. For example, “signaling of P2P traffic presence is TBD. Existing mechanisms may be used (e.g., TSPEC, a TID value > 7..)”.
Regarding “TBD response frame”, okay, we can remove this until we have more discussion on that. I have removed it in the latest revision.
Regards,
Dibakar
From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:16 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Dibakar and all,
Thanks for your clarifications and inputs.
I agree with Chao Chun that we should reuse existing mechanisms as much as possible, please consider making use of TSPEC, QTP etc. if they can serve your purpose. Reusing existing
mechanisms would make this proposal much easier to accept. I think just having a non-AP STA indicate a P2P capability is not enough for AP to know whether there really is on-going P2P traffic in the BSS. I think your suggestion of using TSPEC (There
are also other existing things in spec, such as TSPEC with Direction subfield set to “01”, that can be used by some implementations to signal P2P traffic.) is good and should be used for
non-AP STA to signal its intention of using P2P traffic to AP, this would also allow AP to refuse such traffic if needed. The TSPEC TID/TSID can then be used to signal P2P buffer report to the AP, we don’t need to define a new mechanism. QTP is also useful
to quiet the channel for the P2P traffic, the triggered P2P exchange could happen with a QTP.
Regarding the “TBD response frame”, AP can still recover the medium within PIFS even without it, for
e.g. if it doesn’t detect the Data frame within SIFS. I don’t understand why that wouldn’t be as clean; unless there’s a compelling reason, I would prefer it to be taken out for now.
Regards,
Rojan
From: SANG GOOK KIM <sanggook.kim@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 6:45 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Hello Chao-Chun.
Thanks for your expert suggestion. I got your point.
Best regards,
Sang
From: Chao-Chun Wang [mailto:ccwangg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:47 PM
To: SANG GOOK KIM/Team Leader/LGEUS NA Research & Standards(sanggook.kim@xxxxxxx)
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Sang,
>> On the other hand, STA may initiate P2P transmission by requesting the permission to AP. If so, can your contribution address that?
This is a good question and in case you are not aware, there is a similar feature "Quiet HE STA in an HE BSS" in 11ax, clause 26.17.5, already supports the operation.
The name may not be doing justice but the feature is specifically designed to support P2P operations and can be easily enhanced to support 11BE BSS.
Please review the clause.
Quote:
"Quiet time period (QTP) is an optional feature that defines a period of time(#24439)
that is intended to be
used primarily for the exchange of specific frames between a STA requesting a QTP and its peers using
peer-to-peer links. "
WIth QTP, the AP acquires a time duration (could be periodic) for a specific type of P2P operation (upon request) and allows the P2P operation has a better opportunity to access the channel by requesting HE STAs which are not participating in
the P2P operation to remain quiet if possible. Other than QTP is using a "setup frame" not a trigger frame, the operation flow is exactly the same as proposed by Dibakar.
I would suggest not reinventing the wheel when there is already a feature in the 11ax specification.
QTP can be enhanced/revised to address issues unique to 11BE.
Regards.
Chao-Chun
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:53 PM SANG GOOK KIM <sanggook.kim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Dibakar
Thanks for sharing the contribution and your thought for the questions from Rojan below.
I have a few more my understanding:
1. Based on your contribution, it seems that P2P transmission is initiated by AP. Is it correct? On the other hand, STA may initiate P2P transmission by requesting the permission to AP. If so, can your contribution address that?
2. Even though, you are focusing on data transmission aspect, it is important for AP to know the intention for P2P transmission from STA(s) with that capability. Otherwise, the resource(s) may be wasted.
3. Peer STA may not know the channel between it and other STA for P2P transmission. In slide 6, there is a designation for “ Data from peer STA to other peer”. Can this include the frame exchanges for channel estimation?
I am supportive of this concept, but we need further solid thought for missing parts.
Best regards,
Sang
From: Das, Dibakar [mailto:dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:23 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Rojan,
Thank you for reviewing the document and the valuable feedback. Please see my response inline below.
Regards,
Dibakar
From: rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 6:43 PM
To: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Dibakar,
Thanks for sharing. Few questions:
1) Slide 6: Why is the TBD response frame from peer STA required? Doesn’t the subsequent Data frame suffice? Why is this different from the case of TB PPDUs?
[DD: We were thinking of (a) having a clear signaling to the AP about whether the allocation is going to be used and (b) maintain the 11ax TB operation principle where STA responds in SIFS time to the triggering AP. The mechanism may also work without the Ack part in which case the AP can recover after PIFS if it does not detect energy in medium but that may not be as clean. If there is a huge objection, we can take this part out in next revision until we have more discussion offline.]
2) Slide 6: can you elaborate the sentence “Peer STA uses the allocation for any purpose including peer-to-peer communication.”? E.g. can the allocation be used for uplink transmissions to the AP? I think this will complicate the procedure since now the AP is unsure what to expect.
[DD: We were thinking that the purpose of the TF was simply to grant resource to the peer STA and note that the peer STA is free to transmit any type of frame in that time. Clearly, this does not work if peer STA transmits HE/EHT TB PPDU to AP but works if the peer simply transmits regular SU packets to the AP. However, since the focus of this submission is P2P communication, I agree to remove this text in next revision.]
3) The contribution doesn’t address the issue of how the AP knows when to share the TXOP for the peer STAs. In fact how is the AP even aware of the existence of P2P STAs in the BSS? E.g. TDLP setup frames are transparent to the AP since they are encapsulated in Data frames. Also, BSR reports will likely need special consideration for P2P traffic, right?
[DD: We were trying to focus on just the main feature of frame exchange and did not bring the other discussions here. However, we think only the following are needed beyond whats captured in the slides:
- Basic capability exchange: during association, STA and AP discover each others’ TB P2P capability. We perhaps do not need to say anything about how the P2P STAs find each other as that can be a proprietary or non-IEEE protocol.
- Dynamic resource-request: In general, something equivalent to BSR may be all we need. This can be as simple as using a frame whose QoS Ctrl field has TID > 7 or a new A-Ctrl field at worst. However, we don’t think this is very critical since the usage of BSR is optional in 11ax as well. The AP may as well have an internal scheduling algorithm that allocates resource to P2P STA by observing history of past transmissions without defining new signaling in the spec. There are also other existing things in spec, such as TSPEC with Direction subfield set to “01”, that can be used by some implementations to signal P2P traffic.]
I am supportive of the use case but I think it is important to address #3 as well before we can decide whether this is really as simple as portraited.
[DD: Thank you for the support on the use-case. Please let us know if issue #3 is addressed.]
Regards,
Rojan
From: rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 6:43 PM
To: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Dibakar,
Thanks for sharing. Few questions:
1) Slide 6: Why is the TBD response frame from peer STA required? Doesn’t the subsequent Data frame suffice? Why is this different from the case of TB PPDUs?
2) Slide 6: can you elaborate the sentence “Peer STA uses the allocation for any purpose including peer-to-peer communication.”? E.g. can the allocation be used for uplink transmissions to the AP? I think this will complicate the procedure since now the AP is unsure what to expect.
3) The contribution doesn’t address the issue of how the AP knows when to share the TXOP for the peer STAs. In fact how is the AP even aware of the existence of P2P STAs in the BSS? E.g. TDLP setup frames are transparent to the AP since they are encapsulated in Data frames. Also, BSR reports will likely need special consideration for P2P traffic, right?
I am supportive of the use case but I think it is important to address #3 as well before we can decide whether this is really as simple as portraited.
Regards,
Rojan
From: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:20 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Stephane and others,
We also think that the Triggered P2P is a very useful feature for supporting P2P applications and improving the overall QoS performance of the BSS in 11be. In order to achieve this in Release 1 without significant spec additions and delaying the timeline, we have uploaded a presentation 11-20-871r1 proposing very simple Trigger based P2P operation. Overall, our thoughts seem to be aligned with what Stephane has. The main features are following:
- Limit scope of trigger based P2P for just the cases where the peer STA is associated to triggering AP (slide 5). This is then similar to TDLS use-cases.
- To simplify AP’s channel access mechanism, allocate either the entire TXOP to a P2P STA or the rest of the TXOP to a peer STA.
Please review offline and share your views.
Regards,
Dibakar
From: BARON Stephane <Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:48 AM
To: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Dibakar,
I see your point, and I agree not to limit the mechanism to the cascading.
I also clarify that at least in R1, the scheduled station is associated to the AP (even if its peer is potentially outside of the BSS)
So I propose to amend my SP text as follow.
“Do you support that 11be defines a procedure for an AP to share a part of the obtained TXOP for peer-to-peer (STA-to-STA) frame exchanges by signaling an RU for P2P communication in a trigger frame, the “UL Length” field specifying the allocated time for the peer to peer communication, and the RU being allocated to a non-AP STA associated to the AP?
Note: The trigger frame may be included in a cascading sequence.”
Best regards.
Stéphane.
From: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: jeudi 28 mai 2020 16:17
To: BARON Stephane <Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Stephane,
Thank you for providing the clarification below on the cascade sequence.
At a high-level, we are supportive of this overall simplified sequence for R1 as it requires minimal change in spec while significantly improving medium efficiency and potentially reducing peak latency. Based on the discussion below though we suggest revising the SP text to allow both cascade and non-cascade sequence.
Preferably we will like to remove reference to the Cascade sequence altogether since its more of an implementation choice at AP. We can perhaps instead focus on limiting the scope of the triggered P2P in R1 (e.g., limit only to associated peer STA,…). What do you think ?
Regards,
Dibakar
From: BARON Stephane <Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:51 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Ross,
Thank you for your question.
I think this up to the AP to include the TF triggering with a P2P RU in a cascading sequence or not.
So yes, a simplified sequence as you mention is possible.
However, I think that including a TF for P2P transmission in a cascading sequence provides additional benefits:
- The AP have more flexibility to share a TxOp for UL, DL, or P2P.
- By using additional information like a “More TF” information, a P2P station can avoid immediate ack from its peer (and then save multiple SIFS overhead) if it is confident that another opportunity will come later in the same TxOp (for instance another time slot allocated to the other peer).
-
So, to me, the TF triggering a P2P transmission can be in or out of the scope of a cascading sequence, but have more benefits in a cascading sequence.
Best regards.
Stéphane.
From: Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: mardi 26 mai 2020 03:10
To: BARON Stephane <Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Clarification question on 813r0
Hi Stephane,
Thanks for preparing the contribution. Could you clarify if the whole (not part of) TXOP can be shared to the triggered P2P transmission or not? In other words, does it have to be combined with MU cascading sequence in slide 4? How about a simple procedure like this?
PS: I usually attend PHY calls, so may not have the chance to ask questions after your presentation. That’s why I send the clarification question here in advance. Thanks.
regards
于健 Ross Yu
Huawei Technologies
发件人: BARON Stephane [mailto:Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年5月26日 2:55
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] TGbe Conf Calls [May-July 2020]: Call For Submissions
Hi Alfred,
Can you please add the following contribution to the list:
- 11-20/0813r0 : triggered p2p transmissions follow up (Stephane Baron, Canon), MAC : Medium Access
Best regards.
Stéphane.
From: Alfred Asterjadhi <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: dimanche 10 mai 2020 20:14
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] TGbe Conf Calls [May-July 2020]: Call For Submissions
Hello all,
This is a call for submissions for the upcoming teleconference calls meeting.
Please let me know if you have any items to be added to the agenda by sending me an e-mail with a request using the format below:
- DCN-Presentation Title (Author, Affiliation), Topic
Also please ensure that the presentation is uploaded at least one week prior to the conference call as I will include the links to the presentations in the Submission's list. If the contribution is not uploaded by that time then it may not be included in the list.
PS - There is no need to send an additional request for contributions that are already present in the conf call queue as they will be imported by default to the Back-Logged Submission's List.
Best Regards,
Alfred
--
Alfred Asterjadhi, PhD
IEEE802.11 TGbe Chair,
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
Cell #: +1 858 263 9445
Office #: +1 858 658 5302
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
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
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
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
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