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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT CR MAC NPCA 936r8 now available



On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:54 AM 罗朝明(Chaoming Luo) <luochaoming@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Matt, please see my follow-up inline for 1) and 2).

 

发件人: Matthew Fischer <matthew.fischer@xxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2025年7月2日 1:04
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT CR MAC NPCA 936r8 now available

 

 

I've created just two small editorial changes to 11-25-0936r8 in response to comments from Chaoming, so no upload of r9 yet.

 

 

Responses to Chaoming,

 

1) sequence of 3 vs sequence of 2

 

The language is subtle, but it does allow a sequence of 2

The language states that a sequence of 3 exists, but the STA only needs to definitively identify the 1st and 3rd and it can assume the existence of the 2nd (or actually receive the 2nd)

[cm] My point is: the STA does not need always wait and identify the 3rd. If the STA successfully identifies the 1st and 2nd, it do not need wait until the 3rd one.  


The main requirement is that the 1st PPDU must be identified, and if this is true, because the 3rd frame is sent by the same transmitter as the 1st PPDU, then it is very likely that if the 3rd frame exists, the PHY header will be detected. So by keeping the requirement to detect the 3rd PPDU you are likely missing a small number of NPCA opportunities.
Clearly, if the receive power of the 1st and 3rd PPDUs is small, then there is a higher probability of detecting the 1st and not the 3rd PPDU.

If a STA detected the 1st PPDU and the 2nd PPDU but then failed to detect the 3rd PPDU, then there are two possibilities:
a) the 3rd PPDU was present and you failed to detect it, but as noted above, this is low probability
b) the 3rd PPDU does not exist
 
Case b) can occur even when the 2nd PPDU was detected, because the transmitter of the 1st and 3rd PPDUs might have failed to receive the 2nd PPDU and therefore, failed to transmit the 3rd PPDU, in which case, the OBSS TXOP has failed and no NPCA should occur. So if you drop the 3rd PPDU detection requirement, in these type b) cases, you will ADD a few false NPCA opportunities.

So your suggestion might be net positive or might be net negative to the number of NPCA opportunities.
In either case, the difference is likely small.

These types of questions have been debated for a while regarding NPCA and the case that you suggest has been explicitly left out, probably based on the reasons that I give here.
Feel free to propose this suggestion in the larger group and even SP to gauge support.
I do not feel that I can make such a significant technical change without clear support from the larger group.

 

 2) either the STA is an AP or a non-AP

The phrase that follows non-AP qualifies the non-AP,

 

So this sentence is not just saying "if the STA is an AP or a non-AP"

 

I have added "either" and swapped the order so that it is clear that the conditions are:

 

either A or B

 

I.e. with the presence of "either", one must find "or" before one recognizes that the second condition is being described

i.e. all words between "either" and "or" are part of condition A

This makes the association of the long qualifier attached to non-AP STA to be unambiguously associated only with the non-AP STA and not the AP

 

[cm] To be honest, I get lost. Do you mean the sentence intends to say “if the STA is a non-AP STA and transmission of frames that are not a response to a Trigger frame is not disabled by the MU EDCA protocol, the STA may initiate a TXOP …” or “if the STA is an AP, the STA may initiate a TXOP…”


Yes, you are correct.
I realize that I made that change to r9, which I have not yet uploaded, so you cannot see it.
The sentence within r9 appears as follows:

At each NPCA HE switch time or NPCA NHT switch time, as appropriate, if either the STA is a non-AP STA and transmission of frames that are not a response to a Trigger frame is not disabled by the MU EDCA protocol (See 26.2.7 (EDCA operation using MU EDCA parameters))Once the STA becomes ready to transmit on the NPCA primary channel or the STA is an AP, the STA may initiate a TXOP on the NPCA primary channel by following the rules defined in 10.23.2.2 (EDCA backoff procedure) and 10.23.2.4 (Obtaining an EDCA TXOP) with the following exceptions

 

 3) suggesting to change contains 1 to equal to 1

equal to 1 is only used when you are receiving information and testing it

in this instance, the STA is transmitting the value

no change

 

4) + 5) ELR and DUO statements - requesting deferral

I do not know how many are in favor vs not for these items

An SP will provide such information

 

6) suggestion to move the NOTE on exp backoff

agree

 

  

 

 

On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:53 AM 罗朝明(Chaoming Luo) <luochaoming@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Matt,

 

A few comments on the new revision as attached.

 

BR,

Chaoming

 

发件人: Matthew Fischer <matthew.fischer@xxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2025年7月1日 8:24
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT CR MAC NPCA 936r8 now available

 


Due to overwhelming public demand, a new revision of the NPCA PDT is now available:

 

 

 

--

Matthew Fischer

Broadcom

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


 

--

Matthew Fischer

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



--
Matthew Fischer

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