| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Thanks Yunbo.
Agree on all your responses.
Let's further discuss on the details about Triggered SU operation.
Regards,
Jonghun
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : Liyunbo <liyunbo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date : 2021-04-20 15:41 (GMT+9)
Title : 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Announcement: Motions for TGbe on Wednesday 14th of April 2021
Hi Jonghun,
Thanks for sharing your opinions as well as your questions. Please see my response below in-line.
Regards,
Yunbo
|
Hello Yunbo,
Thanks for your work.
I have comments on your CR 11-21/0552r2.
0. Basically, I support your proposal that utilizing the existing A-control for TXOP return.
[Yunbo] thanks. I am open for it. Currently, the main concern I received from other member is that it is better to use one A-control type that people will implement. While existing A-control hard to address this concern.
1. "Since the explicit indication and implicit indication has their own use cases and benefits, the standard can adopt both of them and the the chip vendor can choose one of them or both in implementation."
I think it would be better to mandate the A-control (ex. SRS) support if the EHT STA supports Triggered TXOP. As you mentioned, SRS is optional feature in HE spec, but I think mandating it only for the EHT STA supporting Triggered TXOP is not a big issue.
This seems to be a simple approach than having another "implicit" indication.
Could you clarify the benifit of having "implicit" indication?
[Yunbo] it depends on the group’s decision. For mandate SRS, I am not sure all people can accept it, because it is designed for NSTR non-AP MLD, so for does it has some scenarios that useful for STR non-AP MLD? The main benefit for the “implicit indication” is that it is not rely on an optional field/element, each STA can free to implement if it wants.
2. Don't we need a mechanism that covers the case that the remaining allocated time is not enough for sending the frame with SRS Control subfield?
[Yunbo] I share some of my thoughts in doc 21/0061. It is a further optimization. Since it already include a lot of details in Dibakar and my CR document for the more basic functions, I didn’t cover it in 21/0552. We can further discuss it whether and how to solve the issue you mentions later.
Best regards,
Jonghun
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : Liyunbo <liyunbo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date : 2021-04-15 11:30 (GMT+9)
Title : [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Announcement: Motions for TGbe on Wednesday 14th of April 2021
Hi Alfred,
I sent a request for doc 21/552, and got your response. But seems it doesn’t shown in the agenda document. Would you please check?
21/552 is related to 21/268 (Dibakar), is it possible to schedule them together? I asked Dibakar, if the schedule will defer his presentation one or two meetings, he is fine for that.
11-21-0552-00-00be-cr-txop-return-for-triggered-su Yunbo Li
Regards,
Yunbo
发件人: Alfred Asterjadhi [mailto:asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2021年4月13日 8:40
收件人:
STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Announcement: Motions for TGbe on Wednesday 14th of April 2021
--
|
|
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