Hi all,
First of all thanks for all the fruitful discussions this morning. This is to initiate discussions specifically regarding SP1 of 20/751r1 that I presented this morning. We can use the example below in my slide#5 for ease of discussion:
Based on the SP1 of 20/741r2 that Insun ran this morning, it appears that the group agrees that a non-AP MLD may request ML Setup with a subset of APs (of an AP MLD). For e.g., the non-AP MLD in the figure above may request ML Setup only
with AP3 and AP2 (for STA3 & STA2 respectively). Intention of my SP1 is to gather group’s opinion on the signaling to achieve the above, there could be 2 opinions (at least):
1) Implicit: non-AP MLD only includes (in the ML Setup request) information of STAs that are requested for ML setup (e.g. STA2 & STA3 in the example). Example: Info of STA3 is carried in the Association Request frame itself while
the ML element in the ML setup frame only carries per-STA sub-element for STA2 (but not for STA1). Each per-STA sub element would also signal which AP(link) should the STA be attached to (e.g. using a LinkID/BSSID etc.).
Pros: Reduction in signaling overhead.
Cons: AP MLD does not have a complete information regarding non-AP MLD’s capabilities.
2) Explicit: In addition to the requested STAs (STA3 & STA2),
non-AP MLD may also include information of STA(s) that are NOT requested for ML Setup (e.g. STA1).
Explicit signal is used to indicate the STAs that are requested for setup (e.g. a bit in the per-STA sub-element, or a separate Bitmap etc.). Example: Info of STA3 is carried in the Association Request frame itself while the ML element in the ML setup
frame carries per-STA sub-element for STA2 as well as
for STA1. A “setup requested bit” in the per-STA element indicates whether setup is requested for that STA. Each per-STA sub element (with the setup requested bit = 1) would also signal
which AP(link) should the STA be attached to (e.g. using a LinkID/BSSID etc.).
Pros: Provides complete information of non-AP MLD’s capabilities etc. to the AP MLD which could be useful for AP MLD to make decisions regarding the ML Setup.
Cons: Increase in signaling overhead.
I think Laurent’s comment was that inclusion of the link information (e.g. Link ID/BSSID) could be considered as explicit indication as well ( which I agree), but for this SP, the
Key question is whether ML setup request includes information of STA(s) that are NOT requested for ML Setup.
Appreciate your feedback/comments. Based on the discussion, I can reword my SP text. Of course, if there are comments/feedback for other aspects of my contributions, they are most welcomed too. Thank!
Regards,
Rojan
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