Hi Alfred,
Would you please add below 1 SP into the agenda? I through the topic of next teleconference is BA, and won’t run the SP about constrained ML.
-
11-20-0433-02-00be-ppdu-alignment-in-str-constrained-multi-link (1SP)
Dear all,
I reorganize the SPs and merged them into 1 SP. I think it cover all the case that discussed in doc 19/1305r2, 20/188r1 and 20/433r2, and the SP
content doesn’t conflict with any of them. Please find the updated slide:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0433-02-00be-ppdu-alignment-in-str-constrained-multi-link.pptx
During the teleconference discussion there is a main question that asked by several people, I try to clarify them here. Further comments are welcome.
Q: Try to use a unified rule for different case. Furtherly, there are two parameters are mentioned for PPDU alignment, one is SIFS- T1, the other
is T2, should we just use the tighter one?
A: Based on analysis, different cases has different requirements for PPDU alignment, we’d better not tight them without a strong technical reason.
My opinion is the spec should provide a guideline for PPDU alignment to solve the technical problems (STR constrain, and ED CS before TB PPDU). Other things can leave to the implementation. In the implementation, if someone want to further use one parameter
(which should be the tighter one), it can just do it, it doesn’t conflict with the spec guideline. There are some drawbacks if we adopt a single tighter parameter in spec. Because base on my understanding SIFS-T1 is roughly 14.4 us, and T2 less than 2 or 4
us, they are quite different. The PPDU alignment offset may case by many factors as mentioned 19/1305r2 (different PPDU formats, different OFDM symbol duration, LTF, GI, different channel access timing), so force all PPDU alignment follows the tighter parameter
which is not necessary will add burden to implementation.
In the previous discussion, they are discussed case by case, so it looks complex. In the new organized SP, all cases are summarized in a 2*2 table,
which will looks clean, and easy for people to understand.
the offset of ending time of PPDU2 compare with ending time of PPDU1 should follows below table:
|
|
PPDU1 doesn’t carry Trigger or carry a Trigger with CS Required = 0
|
PPDU1 carries a Trigger with CS Required = 1
|
|
PPDU2 doesn’t carry Trigger or carry a Trigger with CS Required = 0
|
[-SIFS+T1, SIFS-T1]
|
[-T2, SIFS-T1]
|
|
PPDU2 carries a Trigger with CS Required = 1
|
[-SIFS+T1, T2]
|
[-T2, T2]
|
Regards,
Yunbo
发件人: Alfred Asterjadhi [mailto:asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年4月17日
8:30
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] TGbe Teleconference [04/17/2020]: Agenda Updated
A revised version of the agenda can be found below:
PS: During tomorrow's conference call any member can vote on the straw polls. However, please use the following format:
- Precede your name and affiliation with your voting status (V=Voter, N= Non Voter, P= Potential Voter, A= Aspirant Voter). Will use tomorrow's results to gather some statistics on member voting vs. any member voting.
Hello all,
I uploaded an updated version of the agendas, which contains the agenda for the next conference call (which is a MAC call and starts on
Friday 04/17/2020 at 10:00 ET) and can be found here:
The dial in details can be found below
· Bridge
for MAC: Webex meeting :
Join
Meeting number: 714 940 105
Meeting password: wireless
Please let me know if you have any questions and/or
suggestions.
Best Regards,
--
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
Office #: +1 858 658 5302
--
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
Office #: +1 858 658 5302
--
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
Office #: +1 858 658 5302
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