Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Arik, If a non-AP tells AP it doesn’t want a link (from the MLO link set that it set up during association), for any reason, it’s free money (resource) returned to AP with no fight. Non-AP shouldn’t ask for this if it has any intention of using
that link again, but if it does, well, it doesn’t want it. Smaller IEs, fewer transmissions, coming with no arbitration. Please note the concept of “link” applies to non-AP/client. Cases designated as AP-initiated are in the form of request to non-AP to add/remove its link. On the AP MLD side, it can add and remove AP STAs serving the whole network. With
that said,
Regards, Payam From:
Arik Klein <arik.klein@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi Payam,
Thanks for sharing the presentation.
I have questions regarding proposed SP1 and SP3
In the proposed Straw Poll 1, when the non-AP MLD requests the associated AP MLD to remove a link – the AP MLD can’t reject this request.
On the contrary, in proposed Straw Poll 3, when the AP MLD requests the associated non-AP MLD to remove a link you propose either of 2 options:
My questions are:
Thanks for the swift reply.
Regards, Arik
From: Payam Torab <torab@xxxxxxxx>
Hello all, we will likely have time in our next MAC call to run straw polls for the ML reconfiguration topic I presented today. It would be nice if you could share your comments and questions here.
Regards, Payam 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 |