| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Dibakar, For the first item, if the sentence is just a high level one, not intend that STA will choose any traffic it has. I am ok with it, and we can further discuss the details later. For the second item, Iet’s see whether any people can get a better name. Regards, Yunbo 发件人: Das, Dibakar [mailto:dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi Yunbo, Regarding first item, this touches on channel access part. The details on channel access are not included in this PDT since it would deviate more from the motion text. However, we eventually in a follow-up PDT would need
a way to signal in the MU-RTS frame whether the allocation is for UL only or P2P traffic. Note that we did list them as options in 1312r5.
Regarding the second item, the question is essentially on whether we can find a better term to describe
the purpose of this modified MU-RTS frame. If you can think of a better word than “TXOP Sharing”, please let me know.
Regards, Dibakar From: Liyunbo <liyunbo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Dibakar, Thanks for updating the PDT text. “During this allocated time, the non-AP STA may transmit non-TB PPDUs to its associated AP or another STA”. non –AP STA may have buffered traffic for different AP/STAs at the same
time, I still think it should allow AP have right to control which type of traffic the allocated time is for. For the name of MU-RTS Txop sharing Trigger, how about simple use “SU-RTS Trigger” which already can distinguish it from MU-RTS.
Regards, Yunbo 发件人: Das, Dibakar [mailto:dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi all, Based on the feedback received during the call, I updated the document to r3. I tried to address most of the comments. Please take a look and see if you are fine with the changes.
Note that it is implied that the channel access needs to be defined and will be addressed in a follow-up document. As such, we can address the comments that are related to it at a later date.
Regards, Dibakar From: NEZOU Patrice <Patrice.Nezou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Dibakar, Thank you for your proposal. I have several remarks and questions related to your document 82r2:
·
About the mandatory CTS sent after the TS TF, I don’t understand why it is now mandatory. I think that the TS TF should be considered as a new TF. Using the existing MU-RTS frame creates misunderstandings between
legacy STAs and 11be STAs. So I think it is better to reserve a new value for the “Trigger frame variant“ field and define a new format.
·
When a STA is polled by the AP, the STA shall use a non-TB PPDU. First, the word “non-TB PPDU” is not defined until now. Then the length of the non-TB PPDU is provided by the AP. If the length is too long, what
is the behavior of the STA? How do the AP know when the transmission of the STA is done. A good solution could be that the STA sends another frame to the AP just after sending its non-TB PPDU. This allows the AP to resynchronize and to retrieve its TXOP.
·
In the subclause 35.2.1.3.1, there is an inconsistency: a TDB field remains although you have defined this field in the subclause 9.3.1.22.5. Regards. Patrice From: VIGER Pascal <Pascal.Viger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Dibakar, Thank you for your presentation. I noticed that the latest revision adds the mandatory answer of CTS frame (no longer TBD). I understand that this is mostly a consequence of the usage of the legacy MU-RTS trigger frame that is basically
used with this obligation by 11ax (11ax devices expect to see a CTS answer). Nevertheless, it may appear that such CTS protection provides only an overhead for the Triggered TxOP sharing procedure, as an AP is always obliged to used it whereas the AP could
have determined this is not mandatory in some cases. In addition, as stated by some commenters, by deciding to re-use the MU-RTS TF, aspects dealing with the TXOP holder could be misunderstood by legacies. This is why I would suggest using a new TF type for the TS TF (it is not a big deal to have a distinct TF that solicits a SU PPDU as MU-RTS does), as you will no longer be dependent of any expected
behaviour of MU-RTS TF usage by 11ax legacies. Moreover, in your document section “35.2.1.3.3 Non-AP STA behaviour”, it seems the sentence “the STA shall transmit one or more non-TB PPDUs
“ becomes now erroneous with the latest introduced modification, as the first PPDU shall be a CTS : thus, the STA shall transmit “two or more non-TB-PPDU”, the first being the CTS. Please consider only this comment if you keep the MU-RTS format J. Thanks, Best regards, Pascal From: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Dibakar, I have two comments on your PDT. The first one is about the term of TXOP sharing, which is same to Yunbo’s comment, and I’m glad to see Yunbo propose new term. The second one is the deleted sentence “ It’s TBD whether the AP can optionally not solicit CTS as response to the TS trigger frame ”: One concern is same to Jarkko’s comment that the TXOP holder hand over process may
be not correct if the TS trigger frame solicit CTS frame as response. As you know, the TXOP holder hand over process is AàB or AàB,AàB
mode according to 11ax SPEC, we don’t define AàBàB mode as a new TXOP holder handover process.
Another concern is that it’s no need to solicit CTS if the TS TF is designed for P2P traffic, although you mentioned some group member solid the MU-RTS/CTS exchange process. Anyway, I understand the TS TF is only defined for EHT STA without the burden of compatible
with pre-11be STA, so 11be STA can sends out the SU PPDU to another STA immediately once getting the TXOP from AP MLD.
Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: Liyunbo <liyunbo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Dibakar, Thanks for the presentation. Below are my comments:
1)
“During this allocated time, the non-AP STA can transmit non-TB PPDUs to its associated AP or another STA.”
The sentence imply that it is the non AP STA’s choice about how to use this allocated time. The time is allocated by AP, AP should have the control how to use it. So either add some indication for the purpose of the allocated time, or modify the sentence to
make it open for further discussion.
2)
“TXOP sharing” is an existing term, it is better to use a different name before run the motion. I will feedback to you if I get a name for it.
3)
“GI And HE-LTF Mode subfield” is used in 9.3.1.22.5, but “TBD subfield” is used in the 3rd paragraph of 35.2.1.3.1. Regards, Yunbo 发件人: Das, Dibakar [mailto:dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi all, Thanks for the good discussion on 87r2 today. We will follow up offline with the members who raised the question. Others please ask your questions on this thread so that we can try to address them. I noted Yunbo, Jay, Pascal, Chunyu (?), Xiaofei did not get the chance. Regards, Dibakar From: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi Alfred, The PDT contribution 0087r0 was next in queue for Thursday but not presented due to lack of time. However, its marked as green.
Can you please schedule it for the agenda tomorrow ? Regards, Dibakar From: Alfred Asterjadhi <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx>
Hello all, I uploaded an updated version of the agendas, which contains the agenda for the next conference calls, scheduled on Monday, February
08 (MAC/PHY), 10:00-12:00 ET. The agendas can be found here: DIAL IN DETAILS FOR MONDAY: Join the MAC meeting here:
https://ieeesa.webex.com/ieeesa/j.php?MTID=m0a0a9cac185f64cce900514e8966e029
Meeting number: 179 045 1588 Meeting password: wireless (94735377 from phones and video systems) Join the PHY meeting here:
https://ieeesa.webex.com/ieeesa/j.php?MTID=m974d0a1712c60e96e275d9e504af8977 Meeting number: 179 596 9157 Meeting password: wireless (94735377 from phones and video systems) Please let me know if you have any questions and/or clarifications. Best Regards, Alfred -- Alfred Asterjadhi, PhD IEEE802.11 TGbe Chair, Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Cell #: +1 858 263 9445 Office #: +1 858 658 5302 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
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 |