Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD archite

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hi, Stephen,

Thanks for your typo catches. I note that some of these are on baseline text, so that’ll need to be handled appropriately (whatever that is – Edward?).

In response to your added comments:

In 5.1.5.11, the “local upper-layers” is _not_ the MLD Upper MAC sublayer. Rather it is truly upper-layers (maybe “higher layers” would have been better?) with respect to 802.11. I.e., the LLC sublayer as noted in the parentheses. In general, if we are introducing the new term “MLD Upper MAC sublayer” (and Lower) maybe we want to revisit the existing uses of “upper layer” (29 of them) and “lower layer” (2 of them) to make there is no ambiguity. Or, can we declare that this proposal’s terms, which include “MAC” and use “sublayer” not “layer” are sufficiently unambiguous?
To you comment in 7.1: Your question is really getting at some ambiguity in the baseline text. But, that ambiguity is (somewhat) intentional. The ‘issue’ is that to be quite correct/complete, we would have to say that the DS has a mapping of non-AP STAs to APs and of mesh STAs to mesh gates. (Because mesh STAs are not non-AP STAs. Well, that’s not really true, either, but it is how we generally use the term. This is unravelling into a REVme comment… 😊 ) Anyway, the equivalent of “non-AP MLD to AP MLD” would be “non-AP STA to AP”, you’re right, but then we merged in the mesh stuff and rather than find a term for “non-AP infrastructure STA or mesh STA” we just said “STA” assuming it was clear enough in context. I think that it’s okay (and if not, it’s yet another REVme comment), and the MLD bullet is parallel/equivalent with the infrastructure (non-mesh) meaning of the non-MLD bullet.

Mark

From: Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 5:06 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577

Duncan,

Thanks for all the updates. There are two small comments within the enclosed update and I've made some editorial changes.

Kind regards

Stephen

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 18:20, Duncan Ho <dho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,

I’ve uploaded R3 here. I’ve included all the feedback from the ARC meetings and many individual members offline.

Please let me know if you have further comments and questions. Again, the CR is meant for describing MLO operation and MLD architecture. It’s not for legacy/MLD mixed operation. I think we could address the MLO/MLD without mixing any legacy APs/STAs into it first and add legacy/MLD mixed operation later as needed.

Thanks,
Duncan

From: Duncan Ho <dho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 9:42 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Hi Yonggang,

Thanks for the comment. I’ll add it.

Thanks,
Duncan

From: Yonggang Fang <Yonggang.Fang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:03 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Hi Duncan,

I have a comment on clause 5.1.5.1 on page 7: the clause 5.1.5.1 only mentions PTK. It may be good to mention the functions using GTK somewhere in this clause.

Thanks

Yonggang

From: Payam Torab [mailto:torab@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 1:36 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577

Hi Duncan – a minor late comment; it would be good to state somewhere if MLD changes or does not change the concept of BSS (for example, something to the effect of An AP MLD has at least one BSS on each if its links after start, if there is no change to BSS).
Regards,
Payam

From: Duncan Ho <dho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 12:13 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577
Thanks Rojan for confirming.

BR,
Duncan

From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:43 PM
To: Duncan Ho <dho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Thanks Duncan, looks good to me.

Regards,
Rojan

From: Duncan Ho <dho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 2:46 AM
To: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577

Hi Rojan,

Thanks for the comments and sorry for the delayed reply. I’ve accepted/addressed all your comments (please see my inline response to your comments attached).
I’ll send out the latest version separately. Please let me know if you have more questions and comments.

Thanks,
Duncan

From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 8:50 PM
To: Duncan Ho <dho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Hi Duncan,

Thank you for the CRs. I am generally fine with the intention of the tex. I have added my comments in the attached.

Regards,
Rojan

From: Duncan Ho <dho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 2:00 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Feedback Requested for CRs related to MLD architecture - 11-21-0577

Hi all,

Please see https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0577-00-00be-cr-mld-architecture.docx and let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Thanks,
Duncan
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
*********** MEDIATEK Confidentiality Notice ***********
The information contained in this e-mail message (including any 
attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or 
otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is 
intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any 
use, dissemination, distribution, printing, retaining or copying 
of this e-mail (including its attachments) by unintended recipient(s) 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an 
intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe that you have received 
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately 
(by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of this 
e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not 
disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!
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