Hi All,
Thanks for the response.
11be already well define a lot of things for ML set-up in initial association, I feel some group member intends to redefine these rules in post-association. Maybe need to redefine other stuff, like the MLO architecture as Benita point out,
the state machine, etc.
If you think the 11be timeline is not important, please do it as you want.
Hi Thomas,
If you think double definition is the working style in 802.11 SPEC, everything can be double defined in both initial association and post-association. But not all the features are double defined, like adding BA operation, right? Why?
Hi Binita,
I don’t find there is an arrow from state1 to state4 directly in Figure 11-20, could you help point it out? If not, your note can’t address my concern.
Thanks
Best Regards
Jay Yang
From: Thomas Derham <00000ad2eabc2931-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2022年12月17日 6:53
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] CR doc 22/1709 - Requesting feedback on add/delete link procedure
I agree. Indeed, I would note the paradigm of < initial setup of some feature using (re)association request/response frames, followed some time later by renegotiation of that feature’s parameters using action frames > , is quite common
in 802.11.
Examples off the top of my head include TWT, QoS Map and MSCS.
Initial setup with (re)assoc frames avoids additional frame bursts immediately after association, while the action frame mechanism provides flexibility as needed post-association.
Hi Jay,
I totally agree with Po-kai. There is no reason to say that clients should be forced to add one link only and then add other links later. It does not make sense in the MLO architecture
of 11be. The ML setup is a key feature of ML operation in 11be. Clients need both ML setup and add link functionality for seamless and efficient ML operation.
Thanks,
Binita
Hi Yang, I do not get why you think ML set-up procedure in base line become useless after we have add/delete proposal. I also do not get why client will be forced to always do one and add later. I do not see the connection.
Can you explain
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
|
|
Hi Yang,
I do not get why you think ML set-up procedure in base line become useless after we have add/delete proposal.
I also do not get why client will be forced to always do one and add later. I do not see the connection. Can you explain your logic here?
I mean if client can do more, client will do more.
But then AP will remove and add back as per spec defined, so client should have ability to adjust as proposed in the document.
Best,
Po-Kai
Hi All,
For the guys who support the adding/deleting link proposal, could you help explain why 11be SPEC propose the ML set-up procedure?
If we support this direction, the non-AP MLD can always set-up one link and then set-up other links dynamically in the post-association state, seem the ML set-up procedure in base
line become useless.
Could we remove ML set-up procedure if we work on this direction?
Thanks
Best Regards
Jay Yang
Hi, I would like to speak in favor this submission too.I agreee with the reasons given by Abhi, Po-Kai and Thomas.
AP may not accept all links that STA is requesting and currently there is no easy way to add the missing links to the association.
Currently the STA needs to re-associate, i.e. destroy its current keys and association, redo all setups of Block Acs, SCS, etc. that requires ~ 40 UL and DL messages transmissions.
Even if the STA re-associates, the STA does not know which links the AP is going to accept.
It may happen that STA gets less links than it used to have, or AP just rejects the reassociation request.
With Add Link signaling, the STA may continue to transmit low delay traffic while it adds the missing links to its association.
This improves networking reliability and avoids additional delay caused by totally unnecessary re-association.
It is very hard to come up any reasons why add link signaling should not be included.
As one of the cosigners of the document, I also speak in favor of the proposal.
The proposal has obvious benefits for non-AP MLD to have better link management without going through complicated reassociation procedure.
I understand that there are discussions in the past. However, I will also point out that we have added many link management schemes on the AP MLD side after those discussion in
the past as pointed out by another member. As a result, having better link management for non-AP MLD is now required to balance the current asymmetry of link management capability and is definitely in the scope of 11be.
It will be shocking to me that we decide not to have the proposed link management capability for non-AP MLD due to non-technical reasons.
I also support this proposal, and fully agree with Abhi’s comments.
We should keep in mind that many non-AP STA (MLD) devices will need to dynamically adjust usage of their radio resources for many reasons - e.g. concurrent infra + P2P, in-device
coex with other technologies, neighbor discovery, ranging/sensing, deeper power save, etc.
If a client device needs to disassociate (and later re-associate) each time its available radio resources become insufficient to operate (in an 802.11-compliant manner) the affiliated
non-AP STAs it previously negotiated, it is very disruptive to performance/UX (e.g. due to teardown and recreation of many states including Block acks, QoS, etc). It can also cause unnecessary overhead on the network side (e.g. disassociation might trigger
network accounting events etc).
I agree if there are technical concerns they should be discussed on this thread (there is no way to respond to hearsay about concerns expressed offline). The proposal is not particularly
complex, so I find it hard to believe we could not find a reasonable consensus on the design that avoids unnecessary performance degradation.
I speak in favor of this proposal and here’s my reasoning:
Today, when an AP MLD adds a link (which the non-AP MLD is capable of operating on), there is no mechanism specified in the standard for the non-AP MLD to add that link to its existing
ML setup. This is a gap in the spec that needs to be fixed. It is not a new feature. Due to lack of guidance from the spec, the only option available to a non-AP MLD is to disassociate and reassociate with the same AP MLD. Disassociation is very disruptive.
It tears-down association, security and block ack context. As a result any on-going session is terminated. This will impact performance.
The proposal in 1709 will address the gap and provide a mechanism for a non-AP MLD to seamlessly add a link to an existing ML setup while maintaining association, security and BA
context. Furthermore, any on-going sessions will not be interrupted.
The 1:1 remove feature has benefits too. In the current spec, an AP MLD is allowed to remove a link (on a global basis). However, the spec fails to provide a mechanism for a non-AP
MLD to do the same. There were some arguments made about ‘disabling a link’. Here too, there is asymmetry in the protocol. An AP MLD is allowed to disable a link (on a global basis) if it can’t operate on that link. However from a non-AP MLD point of view,
it has to ‘negotiate’ disablement if it cannot use that link. Signaling PM=1 can be a way to address the issue. However, it still keeps the resources (such as memory etc) allocated and blocked on both sides. Deleting a link is a clean solution for scenarios
where the non-AP MLD knows it won’t be using the link going forward.
We can’t decide to not address an issue because we failed to reach consensus in the past. Instead, I would like to hear technical concerns so that we can work together to solve
them and fix the gaps in the TGbe spec.
WARNING: This
email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
As I commented in an offline discussion, this feature has been discussed for 2 years.
Based on the SP result from the November meeting, it seems that the result is going worse compared with last year's result.
20/1554r4 (ML Reconfiguration, Payam Torab, Facebook)
Straw Poll Result: 43 Y/30 N/18 A
22/1709r4 (LB266 CR for ML Reconfiguration Add Delete Link procedure, Binita Gupta, Meta)
Straw Poll Result: 50 Y/47 N/18 A
I think that it is late to address in TGbe, like other quarantine documents,
Rather than a technical advantage, passing the Letter Ballot is more important to me. Actually, that is the goal of the comment resolution.
In that context, I checked the comment spreadsheet, I know that this CR document may address 8 NO voters' concerns. But, I heard concerns from tens of other NO voters about this
feature in the offline discussion. So, I believe that adding this feature is not helpful to make the approved TG draft in the next LB because they will not change their vote to Approve and will submit more technical comments.
So, as I said in an offline discussion, I like to reject those CIDs for the same reason as other quarantine documents. And, please refer to the rejection document (11-22/2042)
for the motion in the next joint meeting.
I presented CR doc 22/1709r4 during
the TGbe Nov plenary session which proposes add/delete link procedures for dynamically adding a link to the ML setup or deleting a link from the ML setup of a non-AP MLD.
There were some concerns raised by Ming and Yongho on the proposal. I tried to initiate small group discussions to understand and address their concerns, however due to holidays
time, it is hard to find a suitable time slot which works for most.
Hence, I am initiating this discussion on the reflector to hear their concerns and make progress on this CR doc.
I would like to briefly summarize below the reasons/benefits for this proposal, to help the group better understand.
-
Add Link - Currently the spec does not define any action for the non-AP MLD to take when a new affiliated AP is added to the AP MLD. If the non-AP MLD wants to add a link to the new AP it is forced to do a re-association,
which is very disruptive as it clears all the context on BA, security etc. and interrupts ongoing transmissions on existing links. The add link procedure in 22/1709 proposal a mechanism for seamlessly adding a link to the ML setup of the non-AP MLD without
requiring a re-association - it maintains current BA and security context and does not cause any interruption to ongoing transmission on existing links. This is a highly desirable behavior for adding a link to an ML setup.
-
Delete Link – In current spec if a non-AP MLD intends to delete a link from its ML setup, there is no procedure defined for it to do that. It still has to keep using resources for maintaining the link as part
of ML setup even if it moves that link to Power save or negotiate a TID-to-link mapping excluding that link. The delete link procedure in 22/1709 allows explicit deletion of a link from the ML setup and frees up resources for both the non-AP MLD and AP MLD
and simplifies link management.
@Ming – please provide your specific concerns on the add link and delete link procedure. You expressed some concerns on delete
link procedure during the call and below are my responses on those. You didn’t express any technical concerns on the add link part, so are you fine with the proposed add link procedure?
- You mentioned that non-AP MLD can use the power save or negotiate a new T2L mapping for disabling a link from its ML setup. That is possible but that still requires both sides to
keep using resources to maintain the disabled link as I mention above. It is desirable to provide an explicit mechanism to remove the link to simplify the link management for both sides.
- You also mentioned that Advertised T2LM can be used for deleting a link. That feature is defined for disabling a link for the entire AP MLD level and not for deleting a link from
the ML setup of a specific non-AP MLD. So, the Advertised T2LM can’t be used for deleting a link from the ML setup of a non-AP MLD.
@Yongho – please provide your specific concerns on the add/delete link procedure. The main concern I heard from you is that this
is a new feature, and it could impact other parts of the spec and hence should be addressed in UHR timeframe. I think this feature is pretty self-contained and if there is any impact on some other part of the spec, it would be minor clarification, not any
big technical change. Please let me know what specific spec impact you are concerned about (if any). BTW, this feature has been discussed in the group previously in 11-21/0534 CR doc, so this is not a new feature being discussed first time. I also understand
that at that time the group’s direction was that this feature could be brought back in D2.0, and that’s what we are doing here. So, shouldn’t reject this feature saying that this is a new feature.
Again, I would like to understand your specific concerns and find ways to address those to make progress on this proposal in D2.0 timeframe.
Others – please let me know if you have any feedback/comments on the proposal.
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
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
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
|