| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear all, Happy New Year! In the presentation 11-20-1424-01-00be-abbreviation-and-definitions-related-to-str, a question is raised that whether a term of “NSTR MLD” is needed in 11be spec. I got some comments when I presented it, but due to time
limitation, some people may not get chance to express their opinions. I send this e-mail to further collect the opinions from the group. I think there are two questions we need to discuss: Question 1: Whether the term of “NSTR MLD” is needed? Some people said that “NSTR MLD” can be expressed as “MLD that operating on a NSTR link pair ”. Firstly it makes the sentence longer, you can see that there are a lot of SP text related to ML are very very long, a term
of NSTR MLD can help to make it cleaner in some case. From the title of presentation, you can also see that a lot of people like to use the term “NSTR MLD” (may use a similar but different term, e.g. Non-STR MLD, non-STR device, non-STR STA, constrained MLD,
STR constrained MLD,… ), so clearly define a term in the spec will be more continent for people to do technical discussion. Secondly, it is not very accurate, a MLD may have multiple link pairs, when some of the link pair is NSTR, and others are STR, then
it needs to clarify “MLD that operating on a NSTR link pair” also cover this case. I clarified that when we introduce the definition of NSTR MLD, it doesn’t has any affection on the procedure, because all the procedure are based on link pair. So the term only help to make the text clean, and facilitate
the people’s discussion. So I suggest that we can introduce a term “NSTR MLD”. But if many people don’t want to do that, we can stop here, that is also no problem for the spec. Question 2: The definition of NSTR MLD is based on the capability (will be fixed, unless the MLD update its capability) or base on the links it actually use (can dynamically changes after association)? Personally I prefer the definition is based on the capability, but don’t have a strong opinion. The reason is capability based definition will be more easier. Otherwise, if the definition is based on the links it actually
use, then we need to further discuss what if one link is disabled, what if one link is in power save state. And it will looks a little strange that an MLD reported that it has NSTR link pair, but it is a STR MLD when it operating (because one link of the NSTR
link pair is disabled). Regards, Yunbo 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 |