Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-CR-Co-TDMA

Thank you for the discussions on the Co-TDMA PDT during the Wednesday AM1 session. Attached is r6 of the Co-TDMA PDT after some editorial changes.

We can use this email thread to discuss comments/feedback on the Co-TDMA PDT, if there is any. I noticed from the chat window that Klaus, Serhat, Dibakar, Mark, and Jason were in the queue. 

Below are the comments I was able to gather during the PDT discussions. Please let me know if I missed anything.

  • Klaus Doppler: "Feedback information subfield for the ICF still has 21 reserved bits. I suggest to add the "TXOP duration available for sharing with coordinated AP(s)" as a parameter to the Feedback information subfield to help the polled AP to decide if it wants to get a TXOP allocated."
    • [Sanket]: It seems the group has not reached a consensus on this. For example, Samat Shabdanov commented on this. I believe we can make progress based on what the group generally agrees upon. That said, the current PDT does not preclude adding new parameters to the ICF and ICR.
  • Serhat Erkucuk: Add a “TXOP return is required” requirement in the frame format description in subclause 9.
    • [Sanket] The behavioral aspects are covered in subclause 37, which includes your suggestion. And, in subclause 9, the PDT cites the behavior aspect "The TXOP Return Solicited subfield indicates whether the Co-TDMA sharing AP is soliciting a TXOP return from a Co-TDMA coordinated AP, as described in 37.8.2.3.4 (TXOP return phase)."
  • Dibakar Das:
    • The TBD on “The condition(s) for TXOP return and signaling details on how to return the TXOP” still requires NAV-related discussions for the shared TXOP.
      • [Sanket] I believe the PDT provides sufficient conditions (e.g., Rx TXOP Return Support field in a MAPC element, TXOP Return Solicited in Co-TDMA TB ICF and Co-TDMA NTB ICF) and signaling (MAPC TXOP Return frame with specific signaling to indicate TXOP return). Regarding NAV, there are differing views on NAV settings by the shared AP and overprotection. Finalizing these details may require more time and can be addressed after D1.0.
    • Why to have "No other MAPC Public Action frame shall carry a CAS Control field in the HT Control field of the frame’s MAC header."?
      • [Sanket] We have defined a dedicated TXOP return frame, so the return should not come from any other frame. Hence, the sentence is included.
    • There are discussions on including other parameters related to time given/requested 
      • There is no consensus yet. The current PDT does not preclude adding any new parameters to the ICF and ICR. 
  • Mark Rison: 
    • didn't we decide on "CDTMA" not "Co-TDMA"?
      • [Sanket] The D.02 has Co-TDMA. So, it is better to stick with that.
    • did we decide "Control frame" was OK to left of colon in 3.2?
      • [Sanket] I am not sure if I followed your comment. The D0.2 has the definition for ICF. So I used it.
    • "is present in a BSRP Trigger frame transmitted as a Co-TDMA TB ICF " -- and is not present otherwise?
      • [Sanket] The Feedback User Info field may be present in other frames, e.g., in the BSRP NTB Trigger frame in DUO.
    • "the Primary AC " should be "the primary AC "
      • [Sanket] Updated.
    • subfield -> field
      • [Sanket] Updated.
    • "All other values are reserved." -- not clear, is used for other feedback types
      • [Sanket] There are currently no feedback types than Co-TDMA when a User Info field that is addressed to an AP in the BSRP NTB Trigger frame.  
    • "BSRP non-trigger based (NTB) Trigger frame " should be "BSRP NTB Trigger frame "
      • [Sanket] Updated.
    • "AP shall set the Feedback Type subfield of a Feedback User Info field" -- vague "of ***a***"
      • [Sanket] Does "AP shall set the Feedback Type field of the Feedback User Info field" work?
    • "the Frame Body" should be lowercase
      • [Sanket] Updated.

Best,
Sanket Kalamkar

From: Sanket Kalamkar
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 11:00 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: PDT-CR-Co-TDMA

Dear Co-TDMA TTT members,

Based on offline feedback regarding editorial suggestions and the reorganization of the PDT (e.g., moving frame formats from subclause 37 to subclause 9), I have revised and uploaded the Co-TDMA PDT to Mentor.

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/25/11-25-0755-04-00bn-pdt-mac-co-tdma-cr-cc50-part-2.docx

Best,
Sanket Kalamkar
From: Sanket Kalamkar
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:36 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: PDT-CR-Co-TDMA

Dear Co-TDMA TTT members,

I have uploaded Part 2 of the Co-TDMA PDT (11-25/755r0), which includes resolutions for an additional 33 CIDs. The PDT also provides resolutions to existing TBDs.

Please let me know if you have any feedback on the Co-TDMA PDT.

Thanks,
Sanket Kalamkar

B

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

Attachment: 11-25-0755-06-c-tdma_D0_1_Part2.docx
Description: 11-25-0755-06-c-tdma_D0_1_Part2.docx