Hi Christian,
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I don’t think one terminate frame carries multiple measurement setup IDs will make the protocol more complicated, since we can make the termination
frame of fixed length.
On the contrary, it can improve efficiency by avoiding sending multiple termination frames.
Best regards,
Pei
发件人: Christian Berger <crb05006@xxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2022年4月22日
1:10
收件人: 周培(Pei Zhou) <zhoupei1@xxxxxxxx>
抄送: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF]
转发: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hello Pei,
In my opinion, termination is a very small overhead relative to a sensing session. So making the protocol more complicated to achieve some minor efficiency improvement seems not worth it.
Christian
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 9:44 PM 周培(Pei Zhou) <00001462c7c6c67a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Cheng and other members who still have concerns on this contribution,
As I explained in the meeting, it is possible that a STA may run many sensing applications. For example, there are at least 10 (sub-7GHz) use cases listed in doc.: 11-20-1712-02-00bf-wifi-sensing-use-cases, even the same use case may need different attributes/sensing parameters. Thus, there is a possibility that a STA may need more than 10 measurement setups to support different use cases/sensing applications.
Considering a practical scenario, if a STA has set up multiple measurement setups (e.g., 4), and it decides to terminate some of these measurement setups (e.g., terminate 3 and keep one), it is efficient to use our proposed termination frame format. Because only one termination frame is needed to be transmitted, we don’t have to transmit 3 termination frames.
To sum up, I believe termination frame has strong motivation to carry multiple measurement setup IDs. It is a low signaling overhead solution.
Please let me know your opinion, thanks.
Best regards,
Pei
发件人: 周培(Pei Zhou) <>
发送时间: 2022年4月18日 15:41
收件人: Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) <tony.hanxiao@xxxxxxxxxx>
抄送: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: 转发: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Tony,
Based on offline discussion, I made some changes to 22/0626: Updates on measurement setup termination frame.
Please help to add the revised version to the queue and I will try to run SP, thanks.
l 11-22/0626r2, Updates on measurement setup termination frame, Pei Zhou (OPPO), 20 min.
Best regards,
Pei
发件人: stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 代表 周培(Pei Zhou)
发送时间: 2022年4月18日 11:36
收件人: Sahoo, Anirudha (Fed) <00001823ca88828f-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 董贤东 <0000120bd98e7489-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
抄送: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Anirud,
Thank you very much for your detailed suggestions.
I agree with the fact that it is more flexible if the original “terminate all” in my proposal is changed to “terminate all measurement setup initiated by the transmitter” and “terminate all measurement setup initiated by the receiver”.
However, I don't know what the actual scenario is.
Because, terminating all the measurement setups initiated by one STA (transmitter or receiver) doesn’t mean that this STA doesn’t have to participate in subsequent sensing measurement(s).
Best regards,
Pei
发件人: stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 代表 Sahoo, Anirudha (Fed)
发送时间: 2022年4月17日 23:23
收件人: 董贤东 <0000120bd98e7489-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
With the current frame structure, if a STA, as a transmitter of setup termination msg, wants to terminate all measurement setup ids initiated by itself (but not the ones initiated by the rcvr), then it has to list all the measurement setup ids. We can make this case more efficient (and make the whole scheme more flexible) by having the “termination control” field as follows:
Leftmost 2 bits:
00 : tx measurement setup id list NOT present
01: terminate all measurement setup initiated by the txmitter
10 : tx measurement setup id list present
11 : reserved (not used)
Next 2 bits:
00 : rx measurement setup id list NOT present
01: terminate all measurement setup initiated by the rcvr
10 : rx measurement setup id list present
11 : reserved (not used)
Rest 4 bits: reserved
Thus,
1. if a STA wants to terminate all sensing measurement setup(s) initiated by both the transmitter and the receiver of the Sensing Measurement Setup, then the first 4 bits should be “0101”. The frame will be just 1 octet.
2. If a STA wants to terminate all sensing measurement setup(s) initiated by the transmitter of the Sensing Measurement Setup and zero measurement setup initiated by the rcvr of the Sensing Measurement Setup then the first 4 bits should be “0100”. The frame will be just 1 octet.
3. If a STA wants to terminate all sensing measurement setup(s) initiated by the transmitter of the Sensing Measurement Setup and at least one measurement setup(s) initiated by the rcvr of the Sensing Measurement Setup then the first 4 bits should be “0110”. Then the “number of measurement setup ids set by rx” field should be present followed by “Rx measurement setup id list”.
4. If a STA wants to terminate at least one measurement setup(s) initiated by the transmitter of the Sensing Measurement Setup and at least one measurement setup(s) initiated by the rcvr of the Sensing Measurement Setup then the first 4 bits should be “1010”. Then the “number of measurement setup ids set by rx” field and “number of measurement setup ids set by tx” should be present followed by the respective lists.
PS: In the document we should replace “measurement setup ids set by rx” by “measurement set up initiated by the receiver” and
replace “measurement setup ids set by tx” by “measurement set up initiated by the transmitter”. This, in my opinion, will be less confusing.
thanks and regards
-Anirud
Anirudha (Anirud) Sahoo (He/Him)
https://sites.google.com/view/a-sahoo
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Wireless Networks Division
Communications Technology Lab
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 6730
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Ph: 301-975-4439
From: stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of ???
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 5:18 AM
To: Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Ali,
I tend to agree with you using the MU frame is more efficient, but for these devices(e.g. 11n devices) not support the MU we may need to think more about it.
Regards
Xiandong
发件人: Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2022年4月17日 2:05
收件人: 董贤东 <dongxiandong@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Xiandong,
There is no real good reason to introduce protected groupcast frames as it has many complexities including allowing such frames to be used by non-AP STA terminating NTB sequences from several APs (i.e. non-STA sharing groupcast key with several APs). Additionally, because of allowing unassociated STAs to be included in sensing measurement exchange, such a device is not always available to receive thus requires adding polling phase. Finally, obtaining Ack for termination frame is very useful and groupcast/broadcast management frames at this point are no-ACK frame unless we introduce additional complexities to deal with it.
Having said that, AP initiator can always transmit MU frames with inclusion of multiple protected unicast frames, in case it is seeking for channel efficiency.
Bottom line, unicast protected management frame seems to be adequate for now.
BTW, TB reporting phase includes transmission of sensing trigger report frame to obtain one or more unicast protected management frame and does NOT include groupcast frame.
Regards,
Ali
From: 董贤东 <dongxiandong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:22 PM
To: Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Hi Ali,
I think we can explore the groupcast termination frame to terminate one or multiple sensing setup with multiple responders is more efficient, and which is similar way as reporting phase, but we need to have groupcast key for the termination frame.
Regards
Xiandong
发件人: Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2022年4月16日 1:52
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Thanks Dibakar,
I don’t think we have explored the idea of using single MS Request/Response frame exchange to establish multiple sensing setups as use cases aren’t necessary occur at the same time. However, we could in case such information is known to the initiator. For that we would need to move the ‘measurement setup ID’ field to the ‘sensing measurement parameter element’ so that we could multiple IEs.
Ali
From: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:29 AM
To: Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Hi,
Regarding grouping multiple session IDs, I think we should follow the same approach for both sensing setup and termination. If we allow negotiating multiple sessions with one setup request/response frame we can do that for termination as well.
Regards,
Dibakar
From: Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:56 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Pei,
Sorry for my comment during the meeting as I heard that you were talking about the use of MAC addresses which took me to the path of frame being sent with broadcast address requesting termination of setup IDs to many devices!! Now that I understand the intention is to accommodate TB and NTB termination in the same frame between pair of devices, we could add a control byte (which could also contain bits indicating “terminate-all MS” and possibly ‘terminate session’) where it can also include TB/NTB setup field present bits. I guess TB/NTB is analogous to your Tx/Rx indicator (depending on whether it is from AP or non-AP initiator).
Regards,
Ali
From: 周培(Pei Zhou) <00001462c7c6c67a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:34 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Hi Xiandong,
Please see my comments inline.
Best regards,
Pei
发件人: 董贤东 <dongxiandong@xxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2022年4月15日 15:53
收件人: 周培(Pei Zhou) <zhoupei1@xxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Pei,
Thanks for your clarification, please see my comments inline.
Best Regards
Xiandong
发件人: 周培(Pei Zhou) <00001462c7c6c67a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2022年4月15日 15:23
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Xiandong,
According draft 0.01 (refer to Clause 11.21.18.1 Overview, especially Figure 11-41―Example of a WLAN sensing procedure), AP can initiate TB measurement setup (this setup will keep active before termination), then STA can also initiate non-TB measurement setup before the TB measurement setup is terminated.
That is to say, both TB and non-TB cases are active at the same time period.
【dxd】: this means that the both cases occur in time order, not simultaneously , note that we have defined delayed report and immediate report in the D0.01, and if the delayed report is used for the TB case, I think that it is better to send two separate frames for TB and non-TB case, since the inactivity time for the non-TB case is expired, meanwhile the delayed report is not received/transmitted for TB case.
[Pei]: Please look at the figure below, if we assume Measurement Setup ID = 1 corresponding to TB case, Measurement Setup ID = 2 corresponding to non-TB case, then TB and non-TB can occur in the same time period in disordered. There is no limitation that which case is performed before and then followed by another.
In terms of the delayed report, if there is delayed report after the termination frame, we can just discard it. Because if a station decides to send a termination frame, it usually means the measurement results are enough. By the way, this is not a new issue caused by our contribution. It always exists as a corner case.
Since one termination frame can finish two kinds of termination (for TB and non-TB), why we still use a higher overhead solution: send two separate termination frames?
Hope my explanations can address your concerns.
Therefore, AP or non-AP STA can initiate measurement setup termination for TB case and/or non-TB case.
Best regards,
Pei
发件人: 董贤东 <dongxiandong@xxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2022年4月15日 15:03
收件人: 周培(Pei Zhou) <zhoupei1@xxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Pei,
I don’t understand what does the sentence “Since both TB and non-TB cases may overlapping in time” mean, it means the both cases could be occurred simultaneously for the same initiator and responder?
Best regards
Xiandong
发件人: 周培(Pei Zhou) <00001462c7c6c67a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2022年4月15日 14:20
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Solomon,
Thanks for your clarifications and comments.
Yes, the case is that the same non-AP STA participates in both TB and non-TB sensing with the same AP.
I think your idea is to use two termination frames, one to terminate some measurement setups in TB case and the other to terminate some measurement setups in non-TB case.
Since both TB and non-TB cases may overlapping in time, why we just use one termination frame to terminate measurement setups in both TB and non-TB cases?
Best regards,
Pei
发件人: Solomon Trainin <strainin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2022年4月15日 13:21
收件人: 周培(Pei Zhou) <zhoupei1@xxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
Hi Pei,
The presentation introduces overlapping of the MS IDs based on the assumption that both the AP and non-AP allocate the MS ID value. The assumption is wrong for TB sensing. It may be relevant when observing both TB and non-TB sensing. So, the case is that the same non-AP STA participates in both TB and non-TB sensing with the same AP. So, one solution can be to indicate in the termination frame what it is TB or non-TB and not to mixt the TB and non-TB in the same termination frame. No need for any TX/RX fields.
Best regards,
Solomon Trainin
+972547885738
From: 周培(Pei Zhou) <00001462c7c6c67a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:33 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Collecting comments on 22/0626r1: Updates on measurement setup termination frame
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Hi all,
I presented this contribution today. Let me explain a little bit:
1. Both AP and STA can maintain multiple measurement setups. It is not efficient if we limit one termination frame from only terminating one measurement setup (ID).
2. When we terminate multiple measurement setups by one termination frame, we need to indicate who set the measurement setup ID(s).
3. The method of indicating who set the measurement setup ID(s) is that we use two list (Tx List and Rx List), the “Tx” and “Rx” is the “Transmitter” and ”Receiver” of the termination frame.
4. Why we don’t use “Initiator List” and “Responder List”? Because both AP and non-AP STA can act as Initiator. “Initiator List” and “Responder List” maybe misleading to the receiver of the termination frame.
I hope my explanations can address some of your concerns. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
Best regards,
Pei Zhou
OPPO
本电子邮件及其附件含有OPPO公司的保密信息，仅限于邮件指明的收件人使用（包含个人及群组）。禁止任何人在未经授权的情况下以任何形式使用。如果您错收了本邮件，请立即以电子邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件及其附件。
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from OPPO, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1