Hi Yongho,
If we remove the “only”, whats the difference between Restricted TWT SP and regular TWT SP ?
Regards,
Dibakar
From: Yongho Seok <yongho.seok@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:53 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [CR-MAC] Feedback requested for PDT-MAC-restricted-TWT 142r4
Sorry for the late feedback. But, I didn't realize that you added the following definition in R5, since it was added at the very last minutes.
Restricted target wake time (TWT) service period (SP): A restricted period of time
during which only TWT stations (STAs) that are members of that TWT schedule can transmit and/or receive frames that are part of latency sensitive traffic.
I believe that this definition is technically incorrect.
During the restricted period, any other STAs can transmit and/or receive frames. I think that you should remove "only". Otherwise, I am against adding this definition in the spec.
The revision after addressing more comments is uploaded to the server as r5.
My intention is to use 26.8.3 as baseline and then the additional rules defined in the new subclause for EHT STAs take precedence. That should be inline with your suggestion.
I did some research, followed some similar text style (11ax D8.0 pp413, subclause 26.8.1), and modified the text as attached doc. Please take a look.
W.r.t. "The MIB variable qualification in 35.x.4 does not address my concern. ", can you elaborate your concern? Is it more on the technical or editorial side?
My concern is that EHT STA shall follow 26.8.3 (Broadcast TWT operation). The MIB variable qualification in 35.x.4 does not address my concern.
Current wording is not interpreted as TBD. If it is TBD, please change "shall" to "may", remove "26.8.3 (Broadcast TWT operation)", or change "EHT STAs" to "EHT STAs meeting TBD conditions".
Thanks for your feedback. The dependency of other capability field(s) is TBD and needs refinement as we develop details in setup/operation etc. I have learned from a few feedbacks pointing to that restricted TWT rules may not be a superset
of bTWT rules (the two may overlap.) Rather to zoom in now, I prefer to leave to further development.
On your suggested change, if you notice, the sentence in subclause 35.x.4 (Channel access rules for restricted TWT SPs) has the qualification "with dot11RestrictedTWTOptionImplemented set to true" already. Rather to build in too many details
in the general statement, my preference is to leave them in the corresponding subclause. Let me know if this is okay to you.
In 11ax, 26.8.3 is for the HE STA that supports the Broadcast TWT. But, now in the below, you said that EHT STAs shall follow the rules in 26.8.3.
So, does it mean that all EHT STA shall set the Broadcast TWT Support field in the HE Capabilities element to 1? Can you change to "...EHT STAs dot11RestrictedTWTOptionImplemented set to true when restricted TWT SPs...".
The channel access procedure for EHT STAs when restricted TWT SPs are announced shall follow the rules as described in 26.8.3 (Broadcast TWT operation) with additional rules defined in
35.x.3.4 (Channel access rules for restricted TWT SPs).
I incorporated some editorial suggestions and attached please see the WIP draft.
If you have made comments based on r4 on the server, don't worry about the new text and just send me doc with your comments.
Hi, all:
I uploaded the latest revision that has addressed more comments from the group. Please take a look and share your feedback.
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
|