| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Vishnu, Thanks for your good questions, please see my response below in-line. And please
let me know your opinions for the updated version in the attachment. @Gaurang, I shared the updated version to you in anther email two weeks ago, maybe you missed it or didn’t get opportunity to response it. Please
let me know your opinions. Regards, Yunbo 发件人: Vishnu Ratnam [mailto:vishnu.r@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Yunbo, Thank you for the presentation. I repeat my question here which I think wasn’t answered fully.
It is not clear to me why do we need a Link Reconfiguration Confirmation frame from the AP MLD for NSTR status change? In other words, why does the non-AP MLD
need to know when the AP MLD has started taking into consideration its updated NSTR links? Does this knowledge help or change the non-AP MLD operation in any way? [Yunbo] I fully understand your comment. Gaurang asked to added it long time ago. The reason is that AP MLD side needs more time to adjust the scheduling
strategy for the reporting non-AP MLD, he want that at any time AP and STA have same understanding about the NSTR status. The status update at AP MLD side happens after the confirmation frame. @ Gaurang, please let me know whether you still have strong opinion
to add the Confirmation frame. Personally, I am fine with either way. Also some other comments:
1.
“The Link ID subfield specifies a value that uniquely identifies the link that the reported AP is operating on
or the link which is indicated for addition
or deletion to the existing multi-link setup of a non-AP MLD.” Why the “or deletion”? Isn’t that already covered by the reported AP? [Yunbo] it is a typo. I copied it from other CR doc, it is removed in the updated version.
2.
When you have added a “Reconfiguration Operation Type” for NSTR Status update, why do we need a “NSTR Link Pair Present” bit in the STA control field?
Will it not always be present in this subtype? [Yunbo] It make sense to always present for NSTR Status update. I modify it accordingly. Regards, Vishnu From: Liyunbo <00001846a2e5e0c1-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear all, I initiate this email thread to collect the opinions about NSTR status update document. Please let me know your comments/suggestions, thanks! Regards, Yunbo
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 |
Attachment:
11-22-1418-02-00be-lb266-cr-of-nstr-capability-update.docx
Description: 11-22-1418-02-00be-lb266-cr-of-nstr-capability-update.docx