Hi Rae, Thanks for reviewing. Once the AP receives the LLI requested bit, the LLI mode is enabled Actions from AP side: AP sends ICF to solicit LLI if it decided to do so and to allocate time for BA to carry the feedback whether in the immediate response M-BA or in the ICR. Actions from non-AP STA side: STA starts sending M-BA with feedback as an immediate response instead of Ack or BA. STA adds the LLI feedback in the M-BA
Allocating time for LLI feedback is needed and will only happen in the LLI mode is enabled for at least one SCS Thanks, Mohamed On Jun 18, 2025, at 8:04 PM, Haorui Yang (Rae) <yanghaorui0217@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello, Mohamed,
Thanks for providing the PDT.
One Q for clarification: in the curretn PDT, there is no AP cation after it receives the LLI Requested bit, which makes the SCS procedure meaningless. No matter the non-AP STA uses the SCS procedure, it can still send the LLI in the M-BA frame. So the AP action corresponding the LLI requested bit and the non-AP further behaviour is missing.
I am kind of agree with Yue that some traffic needs fast transmission not only due to its serivce characteristics, maybe due to the congestioned queue or insufficient internal resource. So using the SCS procedure can be optional?
BRs, Haorui Yang(Rae)
China Mobile ---- Replied Message ---- Hi Mohamed, I’m happy to go over the PDT, but I’d like to explain why I believe a deferral would be beneficial. - Regarding the CIDs related to the Enablement procedure, are you still planning to use SCS? As we’ve raised multiple times, using SCS introduces ambiguity — it assumes detailed traffic characteristics are known in advance, while LLI is intended to address urgent, unpredictable traffic. We’ve submitted a contribution (25/0495) with further explanation on why SCS may not be the appropriate container for LLI enablement, which has not yet been presented.
- For the CIDs addressing subsequent actions by the TXOP holder, we believe more discussion is needed around what mechanisms can ensure the AP appropriately considers the LLI.
- As for the CIDs on More Indications, many commenters have proposed enhancements to convey more information/Feedbacks. I think it would be helpful to align further on what can be included and how.
Given the above areas, I believe it would be more productive to make additional progress and reach better alignment before presenting the PDT. Regards, Yue | Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. |
Hi Yup, This contribution has been on the server and shared with you for more than a month. I would like to move forward with the presentation and we can have discussion and see which CIDs you need to discuss further.
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
|