Hi Dmitry,
Thank you for your reply. My responses are inline below.
Best regards, Juseong Moon 2025. 9. 15. 오후 2:02, Akhmetov, Dmitry <Dmitry.Akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx> 작성:
Hi Juseong, Thank you for your contribution. I have couple questions/comments: - The problem you are highlighting is technically not P-EDCA specific. As you mentioned, TXOP responder may have an advantage over other devices , but that is the case for all WiFi devices. May be it make sense to evaluate whether this is a problem at all, how severe it is and if does introduce unfairness – try and solve this in the baseline, so it will be solved for P-EDCA as well. ;Juseong: I understand that a TXOP responder may have an advantage in all Wi-Fi devices. However, what makes this different in the P-EDCA context is that legacy non-AP STAs relied only on single-user frame transmissions, whereas P-EDCA explicitly uses DS-CTS to enable multi-STA contention. Because DS transmissions from multiple STAs can be blocked, I believe it is valid to address this directly within P-EDCA. That said, as you suggested, I will also analyze the severity of this potential unfairness.
- The approach to ignore intra BSS NAV seem problematic to me. How STA that need to send DS determine if the NAV set is just a reminder of protection from previous TXOP or it is still being used? ;Juseong: As I mentioned during the presentation, the possible approach in the document was not meant as an unique solution, but rather as an illustrative example inspired by the similarity between DS-CTS and S-CTS transmission procedures. I agree and already know that simply ignoring intra-BSS NAV would raise hidden node issues, so I am exploring more refined mechanisms that would avoid such problems. If you have an alternative idea, I would be very interested in reviewing it.
- You SP “11bn shall consider DS-CTS transmission synchronization between multiple STAs for fairness” is very broad and do not have direct connection with the contribution. “Shall consider DS-CTS transmission synchronization” may have multiple meanings, from “we need PHY level sync to TX DS from multiple STAs” to “NAV synchronization is required between STAs” ;Juseong: I agree that the current straw poll text is overly broad. In the next revision of the document, I plan to refine the wording to be more specific and aligned with 11bn D1.0, so that it better reflects the intended scope.
Dmitry From: "문주성 (Juseong Moon)" <theonebird81@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 3:22 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Regarding 25/0151r1, "Fairness Problem in PEDCA" Hi all, I planned to run the SP of the submission during this F2F meeting. Before running the SP, I would like to know your opinion on the submission. If you have any opinion, please feel free to let me know. Thank you.
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
|