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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] (2) [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Co-TDMA PDT

Hi Sanket,


I share similar opinions with Klaus and Jason.


We need to have further discussions on the information that should be included in the ICR during the polling phase and the announcement frame after the polling phase.

I have prepared a contribution regarding the usage of the announcement frame, which was recently queued.


Best regards,

Taeyoung

 

 

--------- Original Message ---------

Sender : Klaus Doppler (Nokia) <0000320c1b22a542-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date : 2025-05-15 16:36 (GMT+9)

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

 

Hi Sanket,


I did not vote no but I also do support to include more information in the ICR. My suggestion is to include the following in the ICF:


TXOP Duration Intended to be Allocated to Coordinated AP(s) 8 bit field in the Feedback Information field format when the Feedback Type field is set to 3


 The TXOP Duration Intended to be Allocated to Coordinated AP(s) field indicates the TXOP duration the Co-TDMA sharing AP intends to allocate to Co-TDMA coordinated AP(s). The TXOP Duration Intended to be Allocated to Coordinated AP(s) is given in microseconds and signalled as integer value times 16us. The polled AP calculates the TXOP duration the sharing AP intends to allocate as [TXOP Duration Intended to be Allocated to Coordinated AP(s) * 16us] and can use this information to decide whether it wishes to receive a time allocation from the Co-TDMA sharing AP.


 

Together with the primary AC this inclusion will help the polled AP to decide whether to request a time allocation from the sharing AP.


 

Similarly, the response frame should contain some information to help the sharing AP to decide who to allocate the shared part of the TXOP.


 

From the discussions I had, there were three main suggestions for what information to include in the response frame:


 

  1.  Requested time allocation
     
  2.  Requested time allocation per AC
     
  3.  Add in addition to requested time allocation some measure of urgency (e.g. expiry time of buffered data)
     


 

BR, Klaus


From: Sanket Kalamkar <000033b8f79f2eb4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 at 12:06 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Co-TDMA PDT

 

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.

 

Hi all,


The SP on Co-TDMA PDT was run during the Thursday AM1 meeting and received 86Y/40N. For those who voted 'No,' could you please share your concerns here for further discussion?

Best,

Sanket Kalamkar

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