| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Chunyu, Thank you for your explanations. Concerning the comment resolution, I agree that limiting an overlapping quiet interval to 1TU (= 1ms) seems to reduce the negative impact on the fairness. But it is very difficult to evaluate this impact without considering the duration of the rTWT itself. Typically, if the duration of the rTWT is around 1ms, I do not see a significant fairness progress if we limit the overlapping quiet element to the same duration. For the NAV protection, even if the AP can do it, I think additional mechanism should be put in place to allow station with latency sensitive traffic to efficiently use the rTWT protected
by NAV. But I agree that this not in the scope of the TBDs , so I will prepare a text to cover this subject, linked to the part of our 11-20/1843r1 document that is not covered by your 11-21/683 document. Regards. Stéphane. From: Chunyu Hu <chunyuhu07@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi, Stephane: The development of this text is inline with a few things taken into consideration: 1) the motion introduced the TBD rules to quiet intervals usage on a few concerns. One is that it creates unfairness to legacy STAs. Maybe Qi can chime to comment more on this. 2) the rule for rTWT supporting ETH STA is that it will stop its txop to go across the boundary of rTWT SP, and as such, it doesn't need to obey such overlapping quiet intervals to stay quiet during the quiet interval.
This is in the motion as well. 3) the rule for rTWT non-supporting EHT STA is that they can ignore such overlapping quiet intervals. Of course, as you pointed out, the EHT STA would have to parse both rTWT SP info and quiet intervals to know the nature/intention
of quiet interval. This is also agreed per motion. The effort in this proposed CR is to limit the part that the quiet interval's effect on legacy STA vs on EHT STA, which reflects the input we collected from those active motion contributors and commenters, is to limit
the quiet interval duration to its minimum, that is, 1 TU. I agree the NAV protection should be exercised by rTWT STAs similar to the TWT protection field as defined in the individual TWT case. This, even without definition, can be done by rTWT scheduling AP/scheduled STA and
they have incentive to do so. This'll be in the part of the general channel access rule if wish to be spelled explicitly, however, but not this TBD scope. The CR does capture the commenter's input and agreement and we think it's proper to think this draft
text also served as its resolution. Thanks. Chunyu On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 9:42 AM BARON Stephane <Stephane.BARON@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 |