936r4 is now on the server:
Chaoming,
Thanks for the review.
Here is a summary of responses to your comments, for details of changes, please see the newest revision of the document.
1. PPDU-based v TXOP-based condition naming
You correctly point out that some form of TXOP information is possibly being used to determine the NPCA duration in the PPDU-based condition.
Therefore, I have changed PPDU-based to PHY Header based and TXOP based to MAC Header based.
2. might vs may within condition 2
might is the correct term, so no change is needed here
may is the correct term only when an optional action is being described - might is the correct term when describing a possible event, which is the case here
3. request for modification of a long sentence describing the time window for receipt of the third PPDU
I have divided the sentence into a first part and two subbullets
4. request to allow use of PHY header TXOP fields instead of (or in addition to?) MAC DUR field
This would be a significant change, and I am not certain if there is widespread support for it, so I would recommend a separate straw poll / document for this requested change
5. request to move the OBSS PPDU condition to earlier in the sequence
There is no need to move this requirement - the initial statement of condition 2 is that ALL of the following items must be true, so the order does not matter
However, it is noted that the condition says that at least one of the "received PPDUs", but it is not clear that if one receives only the PHY header of the third PPDU, is that a "received PPDU" so I have added the additional condition "or partially received PPDUs" to allow for identification of the OBSS nature of the TXOP through reception of the OBSS information in the PHY header of the third PPDU
6. use of triple negative
It looks like a double negative to me, as such, I do not think that the language is difficult to parse
And your proposed phrasing is inaccurate:
"its use of triggered UL transmission only is enabled"
There is no process that enables UL triggered UL transmission only.
There is only a process that enables or disables UL transmissions that are not triggered
So I have made no change to this text
7. prohibiting UHR ELR PPDU transmission during NPCA
You propose removing this restriction
I'm a bit on the fence on this one - there was a significant amount of informal support for the restriction
I do not know how much opposition there is to including it
So I have made no change for now
8. prohibition of the use of DSO with NPCA
You propose removing this restriction
The arguments that I have heard against using DSO with NPCA are much louder and stronger than ELR
I am confident that there is not much support for removal of this restriction
So I have made no change for now
9. you propose allowing groupcast frame transmisions on the NPCA channel with a new condition:
if All the member STAs corresponding to the group
addressed frames are operating on the NPCA primary channel
Your argument to support this change is based on the last part of the note of motion 366.
I think that we have different interpretations of that note.
Here is the last part that you are using to justify your proposed change:
the group addressed frame will be
buffered and delivered immediately following the next DTIM Beacon, unless
explicitly specified otherwise
I believe that the phrase "unless explicitly specified otherwise" is referring to the future time at which the frames will be delivered, and not to the text in the normative part of the motion text which says that the frames shall not be delivered during the NPCA window.
So no change at this time to the PDT for this comment.