| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello Yongho,
Thanks for the work.
Here are my comments. Please allow that some comments might be the same with those sent from other TTT members.
-
33.x.y1 PPDU ending time
alignement à 33.x.y1 PPDU ending time
alignment
-
Need definition on “non-STR” or “non-STR MLD”. And I think it was restricted to only non-AP MLDs? Maybe a general subclause at the beginning as 33.x.1
needs to be added to describe “non-STR” and the next “simultaneous transmission”, and then 33.x.y talking about the End PPDU Alignment.
-
Need definition on “simultaneous transmission”, or explanation on what exactly “simultaneously transmitting” means in 33.x.y1 PPDU ending time alignement.
Does it link with synchronous starting?
-
In 33.x.y.1, first para “To avoid such self-interference among STAs affiliated to the same MLDs, a MLD that intends to simultaneously
transmits PPDUs to the same non-STR MLD would align the ending times of the PPDUs.”
Ø
…,
a MLD that intends to simultaneously transmits PPDUs … à …,
an MLD that intends to simultaneously transmit PPDUs …
Ø
Why is “would” used here? I thought it will be “shall”. You may have thought of the “high priority frame” case, but the sentence here says to avoid self-interference.
To avoid it, it shall align the ending times. No?
-
“When an AP MLD simultaneously transmits more than one DL PPDUs to the same non-STR non-AP MLD …”
This looks as if a case such as one of the APs in the AP MLD transmits DL PPDUs to one of the non-AP STAs in the non-STR non-AP MLD with multiple RUs is included. I think something like “on different links” needs to be added.
-
This may not be your part, but definition of “high priority frame” should be added somewhere.
-
“An AP affiliated to the AP MLD that transmits a Trigger frame to a STA in a non-STR non-AP MLD shall not set the CS Required
subfield in the Trigger frame to 1, when at least …” Why not simply say “… shall set the CS Required subfield in the Trigger frame to 0, when at least …”?
-
NOTE4 – aRxTxTurnaroundTime is basically implementation dependent. 4 us is just an example and assumed the same among different bands. It will be appropriate
if it’s changed like “…, where assuming 4 us as aRxTxTurnaroundTime among all the PHYs.”
Best regards, tomo From: Yongho Seok <yongho.seok@xxxxxxxxx>
Hello End PPDU Alignment TTT members, I just uploaded an initial proposed draft text of the PPDU ending time alignment. Please refer to the following link. Please let me know any comments by this Wednesday (8/26 PDT) if you have. I plan to upload the next revision on Thursday. Thanks a lot, Yongho 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 |