| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Kumail, Thank you for the clarification. I fully support the approach you have and I would also add that one major advantage (side 6) for non AP sta having P2P latency sensitive traffic is that using rTWT is the only way to
have a predictable medium access for its traffic. This predictable medium access was not achievable for UL traffic until 11be, and to me, this is the reason why 11be introduced rTWT.
This is exactly why P2P station will be eager to use it. So this is clearly a win win situation. On one hand, the AP will control the allocated time and will face less interferences from the P2P STA, and on the other hand, the P2P STA will
have predictable medium access for its latency sensitive traffic. Regards. Stéphane. From: Muhammad Kumail Haider <kumail.ieee@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi all, I have posted 11-21-1855-00-00be-p2p-support-in-restricted-twt-use-cases-and-signaling-design-discussion to
Mentor. This slide deck is intended to continue discussion on p2p support in rTWT by providing some examples and clarifications as requested. Resolution of several p2p related CIDs was proposed in 21/1224 but was deferred to allow further discussion. Key comments that we received during the presentation and offline are as follows:
1855 presents an example use-case scenario and also examples of how the proposed signaling may be used. We have also suggested spec text to specify that for MU RTS TXS Trigger scheduling, both AP and STA need to support Triggered TXOP Sharing. Please let me know further comments in this thread and hope we can work together to converge on this topic. Regards, Kumail. 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 |