Hello Joe,
While I appreciate that concept of a PBSS is complex, I also am not clear on what a PBSS STA is.
I believe the following to be true:
- A PBSS is a personal basic service set in which association is used to establish the mapping between the PBSS and a STA.
Depends what you mean. I don't think association is required. E.g. in 4.10.5 PBSS functional model description we have:
"If a non-PCP STA wants to establish an RSNA with the PCP without association or if the non-PCP STA
wants to establish an RSNA with another non-PCP STA, it can […]"
Only DMG STAs can establish a PBSS. (Note: DMG STAs can also be in a BSS or a IBSS.) The PCP roll may be taken by any DMG STA, but only one DMG STA at any given time will be the PCP, providing the PCPS: association, disassociation, reassociation, and QoS traffic scheduling for the PBSS.
I think that's right.
Also
- A PBSS is DMG BSS that includes at least one PCP. A PCP does not provide access to the DS. The PCP coordinates assess to the WM for STAs associated with the PCP (members of the PBSS)
I think that's right, except that any implication that all members of the PBSS are associated with the PCP is not right.
- ECAPC (extended centralized AP or PCP clustering) defines the concept of: a “cluster” that consists of a single DMG synchronization AP or synchronization PCP (S-PCP) and possibly other AP and PCP that have joined as a member AP or PCP with the synchronization AP or PCP. (To further add to the complexity CDMG introduced synchronized AP and PCP but I don’t think we need to consider this for this CID) But, I don’t think we need to worry about ECAPC for this discussion. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
I have no idea about ECAPCs!
To further the complexity, the specification allows for a non-PCP STA to establish an RSNA either as an associated non-PCP STA or a un-associated non-PCP STA. (4.10.5) – therefore an un-associated non-PCP STA may have an established RSNA with the PCP and be capable of receiving protected group addressed PPDUs.
Hence the issue of being a “member” of a PBSS without associating – I assume the use of membership is referring a STA that has either associated or has established an RSNA. But, I’m not certain about this at all. Can someone please clarify what is meant by “member”.
It might even be possible to be a member without associating and without doing an RSNA
(confusingly, despite the generic heading the text starts "This subclause summarizes the
system setup and operation of an RSNA in a PBSS." so we need something else for
system setup and operation without RSNA in a PBSS -- or does a PBSS require a RSN?).
The question in my view comes down to the following:
PBSS STA is either a DMG STA that can receive PPDUs transmitted in the PBSS (physically located in the PBSS coverage area) or is it a DMG STA that has either associated with the PCP and/or established an RSNA with the PCP.
1) If it is the latter, which I suspect it is, we should clarify the statement and eliminate the use of PBSS STA replacing it with: “A DMG STA that has associated or established an RSNA with the PCP may receive group addressed PPDUs transmitted in the PBSS.”
2) If it is the former we should also clarify, perhaps a “A DMG STA may receive group addressed PPDUs transmitted by any DMG STA (PCP, non-PCP, or AP)”
My understanding is that it's the former.
Lastly, I don’t believe that this is a requirement – there is no “need” for a DMG STA to receive these group addressed PPDUs, just as there is no requirement to receive any transmissions as the specification can’t dictate what a STA receives, the specification should only state what a STA does when it does receive a PPDU. Therefore, while this provides a description of an interesting possible STA behavior, it should not be normative - a note would be preferred.
Correct, hence the "can" == "possibility and capability" per 1.4.
Needless to say, I am not an SME here. I present my understanding,
based on prior discussions with SMEs, but I might well have
misunderstood!
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Joseph Levy <Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2022 16:32
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Solomon Trainin <strainin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; torab@xxxxxxxx
Cc: 'mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx' <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>; M Montemurro (montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx) <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: 11me/D1.0 CID 1678 (PBSS STA behaviour)
While I appreciate that concept of a PBSS is complex, I also am not clear on what a PBSS STA is.
I believe the following to be true:
- A PBSS is a personal basic service set in which association is used to establish the mapping between the PBSS and a STA. Only DMG STAs can establish a PBSS. (Note: DMG STAs can also be in a BSS or a IBSS.) The PCP roll may be taken by any DMG STA, but only one DMG STA at any given time will be the PCP, providing the PCPS: association, disassociation, reassociation, and QoS traffic scheduling for the PBSS.
Also
- A PBSS is DMG BSS that includes at least one PCP. A PCP does not provide access to the DS. The PCP coordinates assess to the WM for STAs associated with the PCP (members of the PBSS)
- ECAPC (extended centralized AP or PCP clustering) defines the concept of: a “cluster” that consists of a single DMG synchronization AP or synchronization PCP (S-PCP) and possibly other AP and PCP that have joined as a member AP or PCP with the synchronization AP or PCP. (To further add to the complexity CDMG introduced synchronized AP and PCP but I don’t think we need to consider this for this CID) But, I don’t think we need to worry about ECAPC for this discussion. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
To further the complexity, the specification allows for a non-PCP STA to establish an RSNA either as an associated non-PCP STA or a un-associated non-PCP STA. (4.10.5) – therefore an un-associated non-PCP STA may have an established RSNA with the PCP and be capable of receiving protected group addressed PPDUs.
Hence the issue of being a “member” of a PBSS without associating – I assume the use of membership is referring a STA that has either associated or has established an RSNA. But, I’m not certain about this at all. Can someone please clarify what is meant by “member”.
The question in my view comes down to the following:
PBSS STA is either a DMG STA that can receive PPDUs transmitted in the PBSS (physically located in the PBSS coverage area) or is it a DMG STA that has either associated with the PCP and/or established an RSNA with the PCP.
1) If it is the latter, which I suspect it is, we should clarify the statement and eliminate the use of PBSS STA replacing it with: “A DMG STA that has associated or established an RSNA with the PCP may receive group addressed PPDUs transmitted in the PBSS.”
2) If it is the former we should also clarify, perhaps a “A DMG STA may receive group addressed PPDUs transmitted by any DMG STA (PCP, non-PCP, or AP)”
Lastly, I don’t believe that this is a requirement – there is no “need” for a DMG STA to receive these group addressed PPDUs, just as there is no requirement to receive any transmissions as the specification can’t dictate what a STA receives, the specification should only state what a STA does when it does receive a PPDU. Therefore, while this provides a description of an interesting possible STA behavior, it should not be normative - a note would be preferred.
Regards,
Joseph
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 5:02 AM
To: Solomon Trainin <strainin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; torab@xxxxxxxx
Cc: 'mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx' <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>; M Montemurro (montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx) <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>; Joseph Levy <Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: 11me/D1.0 CID 1678 (PBSS STA behaviour)
Hello Solomon,
> What does mean the term “PBSS STA” in the sentences? I am not familiar with it. “PCP STA” and “non-PCP STA” is widely used in the text.
A PBSS STA is a STA in a PBSS, which can either be a PCP or a non-PCP STA.
> If I follow the notion of PBSS STAs (whether PCP or non-PCP STA), the wording “PBSS STAs not associated with the PCP” confuses me. From one side, does it imply PCP STA may be associated with other PCP STA?
No, it's trying to imply that a non-PCP STA can be a member of the PBSS
but not associated with the PCP.
> On the other side, what makes the unassociated STA the PBSS STA, why it is not the IBSS or infrastructure BSS STA? I would suggest removing PBSS when speaking about the unassociated STA.
We're talking about PBSSes here, not IBSSes or STAs in an infrastructure BSS.
I had understood (perhaps from you or Payam?) that a STA can be a member of
a PBSS without being required to associate with the PCP.
> Maybe the subclause "10.3.6 Group addressed MPDU transfer procedure" is a better place for the mentioned rules.
Ah, yes, thanks!
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Solomon Trainin <strainin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2022 09:53
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>; torab@xxxxxxxx
Cc: 'mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx' <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>; M Montemurro (montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx) <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>; Levy, Joseph S (Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) <Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: 11me/D1.0 CID 1678 (PBSS STA behaviour)
Hi Mark,
What does mean the term “PBSS STA” in the sentences? I am not familiar with it. “PCP STA” and “non-PCP STA” is widely used in the text.
If I follow the notion of PBSS STAs (whether PCP or non-PCP STA), the wording “PBSS STAs not associated with the PCP” confuses me. From one side, does it imply PCP STA may be associated with other PCP STA? On the other side, what makes the unassociated STA the PBSS STA, why it is not the IBSS or infrastructure BSS STA? I would suggest removing PBSS when speaking about the unassociated STA.
Maybe the subclause "10.3.6 Group addressed MPDU transfer procedure" is a better place for the mentioned rules.
Best regards,
Solomon Trainin
+972547885738
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 6:08 PM
To: Solomon Trainin <strainin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; torab@xxxxxxxx
Cc: 'mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx' <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>; M Montemurro (montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx) <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>; Levy, Joseph S (Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) <Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 11me/D1.0 CID 1678 (PBSS STA behaviour)
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Hello,
TGme is minded to accept the following comment, but could you suggest
a better location to put the two sentences than 10.2.1?
CID 1678
10.2.1
PBSS behaviour is underspecified. Discussion with DMG SMEs has established that:
- PBSS STAs associated with the PCP can receive groupcasts from the PCP,
- PBSS STAs not associated with the PCP can receive groupcasts from the PCP,
- PBSS STAs (whether PCP or non-PCP STA) can receive groupcasts from a non-PCP STA,
but it is not clear that these are actually specified (especially the last, which is the least obvious)At 2075.48 add "- PBSS STAs (whether associated with the PCP or not) can receive group addressed frames from the PCP
- PBSS STAs (whether PCP or non-PCP STA) can receive group addressed frames from a non-PCP STA in the BSS"
(Maybe I'd also add "Non-PCP " to the start of the first bullet.)
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk