| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Laurent, •
An EHT STA within a physical device capable of operating as an EHT STA in at least 2 bands (or 2 channels within one band) shall be part of an MLD Is usage of “physical device” necessary in SP text? Based on SFD text, MLD is a logical entity. It might be better to avoid implementation restrictions. Thanks, Sharan From: Pooya Monajemi [mailto:00000ef0b9e0aff7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
I agree with Srini here, there are some scenarios where this would break. I think Brian mentioned on the call the mesh AP case as an example. Adding the "capability" to operate as MLD would solve some issues though not all. Best Pooya On Friday, August 21, 2020, 12:01:20 PM PDT, Srinivas Kandala <srini.k1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
HI Laurent, •
An EHT STA within a physical device capable of operating as an EHT STA in at least 2 bands (or 2 channels within one band) shall be part of an MLD Concurrently operating or just capable of operating? I am not sure if we really need this SP or even limit in anyway. There could be some interesting scenarios that may pan out in the future
and we don’t want to short circuit them so early in the process. Regards, srini From: Cariou, Laurent [mailto:laurent.cariou@xxxxxxxxx]
Thanks all, See some responses: To VK: I think the following would work •
An EHT STA within a physical device capable of operating as an EHT STA in at least 2 bands (or 2 channels within one band) shall be part of an MLD To Sai: Link refers to the channel and the 2 peers (STA and AP) so not sure it’s fully accurate, but we can use link if the group prefers. In
that case that would become •
An EHT STA within a device capable of operating as an EHT STA in at least 2 links (which are in 2 bands or 2 channels within one band) shall be part of an MLD To Jay: The intention here is just to mention that all those devices will be MLD and therefore will support MLD functionalities that we define.
Obviously the MLD functionalities will depend on the capabilities of the devices themselves (single radio, dual radio, STR, non-STR, …). You have to compare pre-EHT devices and EHT devices with same capabilities (single radio, dual radio, …), in that case
the difference for EHT devices is that they’ll support the MLD functionalities that pre-EHT device don’t. Hope it’s clearer. To Chunyu: We can use link if the group prefers. What we add here is a mandate for all devices that meet the conditions. Obviously, if the STA wants to be dual radio, and benefit from
MLD functionalities, it will need to be supporting MLD. To Pooya: I’ll add that note to SP#2. To Patrice: Obviously, every STA affiliated with an MLD is a STA that operate with the corresponding AP with baseline rules. So EDCA is surely supported
by all STAs and we don’t really need to mention that. Now for specific MLD devices, especially dual radio devices that are non-STR, in addition to baseline channel access of each STAs, we are discussing different channel access mechanisms to improve operation
(for aggregation). But this is not part of the MLO basic framework, as this is dependent on the MLD capabilities.
Thanks Laurent From: NEZOU Patrice <Patrice.Nezou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Laurent, Thanks for initiating discussion about mandatory features related to MLO features. I have a question related to slide 3 and SP#2. I agree with you about the list of sub features. But I think that the medium access procedure
has to be defined for the MLO. At least, a discussion must conclude on how a multi-link transmission is initiated. If the conclusion is that standardized EDCA mechanism is used on each link, I am afraid that a multi-link transmission can never be started or
the efficiency will be very low. So for me, the medium access subject is a key point for the MLO.
Regards. Patrice From: Cariou, Laurent <laurent.cariou@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi all, Starting a thread for Q/A on doc 992 as we ran out of time. Feel free to ask your questions there, and refer to the SP# to which the question applies. Just posted below for reference the versions of SPs for SP1 discussed this morning: •
Original SP
•
An EHT STA that is capable of operating in at least 2 bands shall be part of an MLD •
Modified SP (Brian’s suggestion):
•
An EHT STA within a device capable of operating in at least 2 bands (or 2 channels within one band) shall be part of an MLD •
Suggestion from Yong:
•
An EHT STA shall be part of an MLD? Thanks, Laurent 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 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 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 |