Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Rojan and Yongho, Thank you very much for the discussion. But, I don’t think fairness is an issue for this case. Before this recovery mechanism involved, the AP MLD already obtained a TXOP. And, the TXOP owner’s error recovery shall be limited to the existing TXOP duration, which is the baseline error recovery rule (10.23.2.8). This implies that if the TBD time is longer, the AP MLD has less time to transmit for the follow up frames during the remaining TXOP duration. So, if the AP MLD can initiate a new TXOP after the TBD time, then I agree that there can be a fairness issue. However, as I mentioned here, this is not the case for this proposal. Hope this can answer for your concern. Thanks, Young Hoon From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Yongho, Thanks for the comment. The SP says “
… the AP MLD can continue its transmission on the link within the obtained TXOP
TBD (e.g., SIFS or PIFS) time after the failed reception of the immediate response if the channel is idle. “
My question was
how long can this TBD time be? If there is no maximum specified, that means the AP is allowed to transmit without performing full contention (IFS+backoff) for the whole TXOP; whereas a 3rd party non-AP STAs need to perform a full contention.
That’s what I meant by unfair to the non-AP STAs. Best Regards, Rojan From: Yongho Seok <yongho.seok@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi Rojan, The AP MLD is still listening to a primary channel on the link even though it failed to listen to any control response from the TXOP responder. In consequence, the AP MLD updates any physical and virtual CCA if it listens to any other transmission during the waiting time for synchronizing both links. When the AP MLD checks the CCA during the TBD time (e.g., PIFS or SIFS) for accessing the failed link, in such case the CCA may be busy. If the AP MLD can't listen to the failed link during the waiting time for synchronizing both links and tries to access the link just based on the ED during PIFS, I agree that it may have some problem like a collision. In the SP, the CCA mechanism on the link is TBD. I think that the CCA mechanism should consider the packet detection etc. It should not be just the ED based channel access. In this case, I couldn't understand what is
a fairness issue. Thanks, Yongho 2020년 6월 23일
(화)
오후 8:39, Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>님이
작성:
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 |