| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi all, Thanks Liwen for your contribution 11-22/1503 and thanks Stephen for highlighting the rejection reason of my CID#12862. I agree with Stephen that the rejection reason for this CID#12862 is not satisfactory. I think that current EMLMR signaling mechanisms in draft v2.3 could support the activation/desactivation of EMLMR mode on several EMLMR links sets with the effort of only
few additional text. So, even if it goes beyond current implementations, only few additional text could be added in standard draft to indicate and drive such possibility which may be of interest
for future implementations. Here is below a text proposal to revise this CID#12862 in doc. 11-22/1503 : “A non-AP MLD may enable/disable EMLMR mode independently and simultaneously on several EMLMR links sets by transmitting several EML Operating Mode Notification frames to
the AP MLD. To enable/disable EMLMR mode independently and simultaneously on several EMLMR links sets, the EMLMR Link Bitmap of these sets shall be disjoint. If a non-AP MLD with dot11EHTEMLMROptionImplemented equal to true intends to deactivate a current EMLMR mode applying in an EMLMR links set after multi-link setup, then a non-AP STA affiliated with
the non-AP MLD shall transmit, on a link belonging to the EMLMR link set, an EML Operating Mode Notification frame with EMLMR Mode subfield equal to 0 to disable the EMLMR mode for this EMLMR links set.” Best regards Mike From: Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx>
Liwen, thank you for your presentation of 11-22-1503r4 in the TGbe ad-hoc today. Unfortunately I disagree with your rejection of CID 12862. Your rejection states that an implementation of multiple EMRMR link sets would be complicated and I agree with that. However, this is a poor rejection, as it is essentially saying
that the solution to this comment is too complicated, which I think is poor engineering. I also understand that the number of links in an MLD is constrained by either a 3 bit or 4 bit value (I forget precisely), which could be more than 3 links. I would like to kindly point out that TGbe is an amendment to a standard, it is not an implementation guideline. I would recommend that if you wish to reject this comment, it should be changed to state an alternative reason. Thanks. Kind regards Stephen 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 |