Hi Matt,
Thanks a lot for your effort on preparing the PDT. I have some comments on the 1395r10.
1) "Non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR ) link pair: A pair of links of a multi link device (MLD ) for which the transmission by a STA of the MLD on one of the links of a PPDU using the maximum allowed transmission power on the primary 20 MHz channel of the BSS using any PPDU bandwidth permitted within the BSS that the STA is capable of transmitting causes the inability of the STA of the MLD on the other link to meet the minimum receive sensitivity requirement defined in 34.w.x..y (Receiver minimum input sensitivity). Each link of such a pair is a member of the NSTR link pair."
a) Does the spec allow to refer to the requirement in the definition?
b) This definition of NSTR is too complicated. Your previous definition of NSTR before R8 is much simple and clear. Why is it necessary to add such condition in the NSTR definition? It would be better to describe those conditions in the NSTR ML setup and operation.
2) RTS link
There is no definition for RTS link. Suggest to change to the link that carries the RTS frame or other words.
3) "In this subclause , a STA is NSTR limited if all of the following conditions are true:
- the STA is affiliated with an MLD that has NSTR link pairs
- the STA has received the RTS on a link that is a member of one or more of the MLD ’sNSTR link pairs
- a STA of the MLD is a TXOP holder or TXOP responder on one of the other links that is a member of at least one of the NSTR link pairs of which the RTS link is a member"
The first bullet is not necessary as it has been covered by the the second and third one.
4) "A STA that is affiliated with a non-AP MLD and that transmits a frame on a link of one of its NSTR link pairs at the same time that another STA affiliated with the same non-AP MLD is receiving a frame on the other link of the NSTR link pair should ensure that the transmitted PPDU ends at the same time or earlier than the PPDU that is being recevied ."
a) It seems this sentence describes the case of STR not for NSTR . Could you please clarify this sentence ?
Best Regards
Yonggang Fang
ZTE (TX)
Yunbo ,Thanks for the review.I am blaming my computer for having lost track of your email - my machine had rebooted a couple of times in the last couple of days.As for your comments - I believe that you were able to bring each of your points up during the presentation Monday PDT, and I responded.I've included a summary here:1) NSTR definitionAs discussed, I believe that there can never be a specific definition - the best that it can say is "transmission on one link causes receive impairment on the other link of the pair"See r92) "transmit and receive" v "transmission and reception"Agree to settle on one phrase - currently chose "transmit and receive" - see r93) phrasing, "not respond with CTS " v "may respond with CTS "The convention is "may respond" - this implies that it is ok to NOT respond, this is how the standard is always writtenI.e. we never say "a STA may not do something"4) NSTR non-AP MLD should align PPDUyour comment is that this is not in the motionI agreed on the call that we should SP this text after the body has had some time to think about whether the recommendation "should" is acceptable here, and noting that the motion was very broad in simply stating that the behavior of the NSTR MLD needs to be specifiedMatthew FischerNice GuyBroadcom Inc.+1 408 543 3370 officeOn Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:15 AM Liyunbo <liyunbo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Matt,
Sorry for my network problem during the teleconference. Please find my comments attached.
Regards,
Yunbo
发件人: Matthew Fischer [mailto:00000959766b2ff5-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年9月5日 9:45
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Comments on 11-20-1395-00-00be-pdt-mac-mlo-multi-link-channel-access-general-non-str
D mitry ,
On 1) - I understand the reason for your different interpretation.
Maybe it would be better as:
If all of the conditions of the previous paragraph are met, except for "the STA is not NSTR limited"
Would that make it more clear?
Or even more explicitly:
If all of the conditions of the previous paragraph are met, except for the condition "the STA is not NSTR limited"
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:35 PM Matthew Fischer <matthew.fischer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dmitry ,
1)
link set should be describable as a set of links rather than a pair - there is no reason to limit it to only 2 links
and yes, the assumption is that all links in the set are NSTR to each other - I thought about whether any asymmetry could exist and it seemed pretty implausible to me
2)
on the CTS response extra condition - you're not reading it correctly
if says, if all of the conditions of the preceding paragraph are met EXCEPT - so you have to reread it as - the only condition that failed in the paragraph was that the STA was NSTR limited
if that is true, then it cannot be the case that an STR STA reaches this point
Matthew Fischer
Nice Guy
Broadcom Inc.
+1 408 543 3370 office
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:15 PM Akhmetov , Dmitry <Dmitry .Akhmetov @intel.com> wrote:
Hi Matt,
Please find my comments attached
From: Matthew Fischer <00000959766b2ff5-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2020 4:54 PM
To : STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Comments on 11-20-1395-00-00be-pdt-mac-mlo-multi-link-channel-access-general-non-str
Hello,
I've made a small addition.
I've added another AP should not transmit to an NSTR MLD in the case of when the AP might be able to determine that some STA of the NSTR MLD is actively transmitting to anybody else (i.e. currently, it only mentions transmitting to the AP, because that's easy for the AP to figure out) but it is possible that maybe the AP can see the non-AP transmitting for example, a P2P on a link and the AP might be able to decode the EHT PPDU header AID and Color or something in the MAC header that tells it that this is a TX by the non-AP MLD and if it can do that, then again, the AP should not TX to that NSTR non-AP MLD - so this new should not applies only when the AP is able to make that determination.
Matthew Fischer
Nice Guy
Broadcom Inc.
+1 408 543 3370 office
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 6:35 PM김상현 <shk0787@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Matthew and Kaiying ,
I saw R2, and it seems to reflect SFD well.
Thank you for your hard work.
Best Regard,
Sanghyun Kim
Sanghyun Kim, Ph.D
WILUS Inc.
5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu,
Seongnam-si Gyeonggi-do 13595, Korea
T +82 31 712 0523
www.wilusgroup.com
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kaiying Lu"<Kaiying .Lu@MEDIATEK .COM>
To: <STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Cc:
Sent: 2020-09-04 (금) 03:41:52 (GMT+09:00)
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Comments on 11-20-1395-00-00be-pdt-mac-mlo-multi-link-channel-access-general-non-str
Hi Matt and Sanghyun ,
I agree with Sanghyun ’s comment. The SFD gave the condition on which the responder is allowed to make a choice. But the condition is that the another STA affiliated with the NSTR MLD is participating an TXOP on that link. Without this condition, the NSTR responder shall respond CTS if NAV is idle on this link.
I think the draft text should reflect this condition.
Thanks,
Kaiying
From: Matthew Fischer [mailto:00000959766b2ff5-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:00 AM
To : STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Comments on 11-20-1395-00-00be-pdt-mac-mlo-multi-link-channel-access-general-non-str
Sanghyun ,
1)
missing "." added
2)
your comment:
text does not cover “the STA may not respond with a CTS frame." of the SFD . (We need some “may” for a STA with NSTR contrained )
the SFD text bothers me
a. I agree that the SFD says "may" not respond, which appears to allow for the responder to make a choice
b. I agree that doc 1395r0 does not provide a choice to the responder , but instead, always dictates, depending on conditions, that there either shall or shall not be a CTS
When reading the SFD , I assumed that the language was imprecise.
I will create a version which provides the choice as an alternative, assuming that the SFD expresses exactly what the body desired, i.e. that the responder has a choice.
That will be version r2
Matthew Fischer
Nice Guy
Broadcom Inc.
+1 408 543 3370 office
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:59 PM김상현 <shk0787@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Matthew,
Thanks for preparing the text.
Please find attached comments.
Best Regards,
Sanghyun Kim
Sanghyun Kim, Ph.D
WILUS Inc.
5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu,
Seongnam-si Gyeonggi-do 13595, Korea
T +82 31 712 0523
www.wilusgroup.com
-----Original Message-----
From: "Liuming Lu"<lu.liuming@ZTE .COM.CN>
To: <STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Cc:
Sent: 2020-09-03 (목) 11:26:26 (GMT+09:00)
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Comments on 11-20-1395-00-00be-pdt-mac-mlo-multi-link-channel-access-general-non-str
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for the preparation for the pdt-mac-mlo-multi-link-channel-access-general-non-str.
I have some comments. Please see the attached file.
Best Regards,
Liuming Lu
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
*********** MEDIATEK Confidentiality Notice ***********The information contained in this e-mail message (including anyattachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, orotherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It isintended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Anyuse, dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copyingof this e-mail (including its attachments) by unintended recipient(s)is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not anintended recipient of this e-mail, or believe that you have receivedthis e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately(by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of thise-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do notdisclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!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