Hi Rojan, Insun,
Please see my comments in-line below in
green:
Regards,
Abhi
From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 3:21 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] ML IE usage for ML setup
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization.
Hi Insun,
Thanks for sharing.
Regarding your discussion point, is it possible for a STA affiliated with a non-AP MLD to send an Association Request frame
(without ML element)? If yes, isn’t that enough to signal legacy Association? If an ML Element is included in the Association request frame, I would think it should be considered ML association. What is the reason to include ML element for legacy Association?
I agree with Rojan – If a (Re)Assoc Req frame does not include ML IE, the association (if successful) would
be considered as legacy association. If the Req frame were to include ML IE, then it is considered to be a multi-link setup with one or more links. This approach will help keep the procedures involved in legacy vs MLO association clear.
Two quick questions regarding the text:
1) Is the Status Code subfield of the Per-STA Control field of the Basic variant Multi-Link element a new field, or is
it already defined? If not defined, we need to add it in clause 9.
The Status Code field will be carried within the STA Profile field – please see 35.3.2.2 – the STA Profile
carries fields and elements:
In addition, the bullet describing the content of STA Profile field clarifies that it includes
fields carried in the corresponding frame:
2) regarding below text:
When the AP affiliated with the AP MLD cannot accept the link on which the (Re)Association Request frame was received, the AP shall treat the multi-link (re)setup as a failure and indicate in the Status Code
field the reason for not accepting the link.
Where is this Status Code field located? Would be good to clarify. In this case, is it still necessary to include Per-link Info for all the other links since the request
is rejected?
Please see above response regarding location of the Status Code field.
If the AP MLD does not accept the link where (Re)Assoc Req frame is received, then the entire ML setup fails.
It may be useful to provide the Status Code for each of the other link so that the non-AP MLD has more information – such as, the AP MLD was Ok with the
other link and that the non-AP could try to perform ML setup that involves the ‘acceptable links’.
Regards,
Rojan
From:
장인선 <insun.jang@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 3:47 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] ML IE usage for ML setup
Hi all,
I’ve updated the CR-PDT related to ML IE usage for ML setup (21/499r2) based on offline feedback. Thanks all
Especially, I’ve provided two options and relevant texts for the following issue as a discussion point.
“When a non-AP MLD with more than one STA requests one link only (where Assoc. Request frame is transmitted), it shall be considered as the legacy association or ML setup”
Please review that before the discussion in the call, and let me know if you have any opinions on the document.
Thanks
Best Regards
Insun
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