Hi Yongho, Minyoung, Mark
Following your comments I produced version r2 which is on the server now. Thank you for your work
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/24/11-24-2007-02-00bn-pdt-mac-p-edca.docx
Dmitry
From: Yongho Seok <yongho.seok@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Akhmetov, Dmitry <Dmitry.Akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-MAC P-EDCA
Hi Dmitry,
Could you elaborate on why you changed "the tail access delay" to "the worst-case access delay"?
The tail access delay is a statistical term used to describe delays that occur in a small percentage of cases (e.g., the percentile of delays). The worst-case access delay refers
to the maximum possible delay in a given system—the absolute upper bound—considering all potential conditions (e.g., collisions, contention, and backoff mechanisms). I believe that P-EDCA does not improve the worst-case access delay. In your previous simulation,
you also indicated an improvement in tail latency (e.g., 95th percentile). I prefer to use the same wording (tail access delay) used in the past motion.
Also, regarding "Editor’s Note:
The use of P-EDCA by an UHR STA is expected to have balanced impact on STAs that do not use P-EDCA.",
I believe the passed motion (the impact on legacy device has to be balance) is a requirement of the P-EDCA, not an Editor's note. I suggest that you provide the appropriate specification
text instead of the Editor's note.
Thanks,
Yongho
2025년 1월 5일 (일)
오후 4:18, Akhmetov, Dmitry <Dmitry.Akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx>님이
작성:
Hi Mark, Minyoung, Mohamed
Thanks a lot for your comments.
How about:
Editor’s note: “The use of P-EDCA by an UHR STA should balance the impact on STAs that do not use P-EDCA through TBD rules”
This a) will assure members that rules will be provided and b) the sentence will disappear after that
Dmitry.
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 8:39 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-MAC P-EDCA
I agree there should be rules. We need to add such rules to the PDT.
Saying that we "should" (or "expect to", or any other statements of
intent rather than of action) do a good job is useless and does not
belong to spec text (I'm fine with it being an Editor's note so we
don't forget to do our job).
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
1 Cambridge Square, Cambridge CB4 0AE Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Mohamed Abouelseoud <mohamed.a.abouelseoud@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 19 December 2024 16:16
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-MAC P-EDCA
@Mark, there should be some rules, TBD (for example on who and how often to use the P-EDCA and for how long), to recommend implementation requirements to limit the effect on the legacy. Maybe we can keep should and add "through TBD rules"
On Dec 19, 2024, at 7:59 AM, Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"should" is used to introduce a recommendation on implementations.
Exactly what recommendation are you proposing here, Mohamed?
I have the following comments on r1:
- "EDCA channel access protocol" -- the CA in EDCA is channel access,
so we have enhanced distributed channel access channel access protocol.
And I'm not sure it's a protocol anyway ("channel access protocol" and
"EDCA protocol" do not appear in me/D7.0). What was wrong with
"EDCA mechanism" (which appears more than 20 times in me/D7.0)?
- "worst case" should be "worst-case"
- "reduces worst case access delay" is missing "the"
- "an UHR" should be "a UHR"
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
1 Cambridge Square, Cambridge CB4 0AE Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Mohamed Abouelseoud <mohamed.a.abouelseoud@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 19 December 2024 15:43
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-MAC P-EDCA
Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for working on the PDT and for the update.
I think that the sentence about the effect on legacy approved in the motion is better than the one currently updated. I am not sure what is expected to means., “Should" is the common word we use for expected behavior. Also, I would keep it with the description text not move it to an editor note!
Thanks,
Mohamed
On Dec 17, 2024, at 5:37 PM, Akhmetov, Dmitry <Dmitry.Akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greetings all,
Thank you for submitted comments.
Revision 1 is now on mentor:
Please use this thread to provide additional comments/suggestion you may have.
Thank you,
Dmitry
From: Akhmetov, Dmitry
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 10:07 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: PDT-MAC P-EDCA
Greetings everyone,
This is the thread to start discussion on the Prioritized EDCA , P-EDCA (formerly known as HiP EDCA) .
The initial version of the proposed draft text document can be found here:
Dmitry
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
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
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
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
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
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