Subject: Follow-up on CID 17798, CID 16880 and MIB/SME for P-EDCA
Hi Dmitry,
Thanks a lot for your work on this.
This email includes three independent discussion points related to P-EDCA:
1. CID 17798
The resolution states that using the same set of P-EDCA parameters for both AP and non-AP STAs is an intentional design choice rather than an oversight. I would like to seek further clarification on the rationale behind this design decision.
As we know, legacy EDCA already supports separate parameter configurations for APs and non-AP STAs. From my understanding, only minimal changes to the current specification would be sufficient to enable independent P-EDCA parameter sets for APs and non-AP STAs. This improvement could bring differentiated channel access priority for downlink UHR traffic and BSS management signaling at AP side, without introducing excessive specification development overhead. It seems to be a beneficial enhancement to enrich the protocol capability.
Could you please share the key considerations that lead to this intentional same-parameter design for P-EDCA?
2. CID 16880
Regarding the normative text on Page 293 and Page 294(D2.0):
> Page 293:
If the AP has enabled P-EDCA and the most recent Mode Tuple field corresponding to P-EDCA in UHR Parameters Update element from the AP
does not carry the Mode Specific Parameters field for P-EDCA in P-EDCA enable or P-EDCA update operations,
then the default P-EDCA parameters specified in Table 37-1 (Default values for P-EDCA parameters)
shall apply.
> Page 294: Table 37-1 (Default values for P-EDCA parameters) defines default values for P-EDCA parameters
used by a P-EDCA STA
when the AP has enabled P-EDCA and does not advertise P-EDCA parameters.
I understand the intended meaning of these two sentences, yet I believe the wording and layout could be refined.
- There appears to be redundancy between the rule on page 293 and the description for Table 37-1 on page 294, since both describe the scenario where default P-EDCA parameters take effect.
-
The page 293 sentence only talks about the AP, and the clause “shall apply” does not explicitly cover non-AP STAs, which is what we intend to include. Perhaps wording like "... shall apply for the P-EDCA STA" would be clearer.- These two statements are about the same default-parameter rule but are separated by several other paragraphs. It would improve readability if they could be placed in adjacent paragraphs.
3. MIB and SME
As discussed in earlier email threads, I still hold the view that the MIB is necessary. It shall be explicitly specified that parameters on the AP side originate from SME. Compared with MU EDCA, the EDCA machine serves as a better reference for this design.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Junpeng Lou
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1