Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Follow-up discussion on 25/1950 P-EDCA CIDs

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

Hi Dmitry,

Thank you for your feedback!

Since I haven’t received any other comments, I assume we can go with option 2.

A P-EDCA STA affiliated with an MLD may start a P-EDCA contention on the link where the STA is operating in a BSS if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

— P-EDCA has been enabled by the AP in the BSS and the P-EDCA non-AP STA has enabled P-EDCA with the AP in the BSS on that link.

— …

Hi P-EDCA TTT members,

I have uploaded 25/1950r1 to the mentor with updated text about conditions to start a P-EDCA contention. Please review and let me know if you have any comments, thanks!

Regards,

Zhenpeng

From: Akhmetov, Dmitry <Dmitry.Akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 1:59 PM
To: Shizhenpeng <shizhenpeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Follow-up discussion on 25/1950 P-EDCA CIDs

Hi Zhenpeng,

For option 1 – if you say “P-EDCA STA has enabled-EDCA with the AP in the BSS “ than you don’t need “if STA is a non-AP STA” because if STA enable P-EDCA with the AP it would imply that STA is the non-AP STA.

For option 2 – my personal preference. It do solve the issue of “intend to use” with minimal changes

Both options explicitly call out that AP has to enable P-EDCA and it for the BSS and non-AP

From: Shizhenpeng <000039117b12e4ac-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 6:36 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Follow-up discussion on 25/1950 P-EDCA CIDs

Hi P-EDCA TTT members,

Thank you for your comments on 25/1950r0 during today’s call. I would like to continue the discussion in this email thread and see the group’s preference on how to address the relevant CIDs.

In 11bn D1.2, we have the following text on conditions for a P-EDCA STA to start a P-EDCA contention:

A P-EDCA STA may start a P-EDCA contention if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

— P-EDCA is enabled by the AP in the BSS and the P-EDCA non-AP STA has notified the AP of its intent to use P-EDCA on the link.

— …

To make it more clear, one option would be updating the text as follows:

(Option 1) A P-EDCA STA affiliated with an MLD may start a P-EDCA contention on the link where the STA is operating in a BSS if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

— P-EDCA has been enabled by the AP in the BSS.

— The P-EDCA STA has enabled P-EDCA with the AP in the BSS on that link if the P-EDCA STA is a non-AP STA.

— …

Some explanations:

The original first bullet is separated into two bullets, where the first one applies to all P-EDCA STAs (AP or non-AP STA), and the second bullet applies only when the P-EDCA STA is a non-AP STA.
In the second bullet,
- “has notified the AP of its intent to use P-EDCA” is replaced by “has enabled P-EDCA” as we already have a clear definition of P-EDCA enablement.
- The bullet starts with “P-EDCA STA” so that the subject is consistent with the main sentence, and the “non-AP” aspect is captured by adding “if the P-EDCA STA is a non-AP STA” at the end. (Personally I feel this way is better, but I’m also okay with using “P-EDCA non-AP STA” as before.)

We could also follow the original style by combining the first and second bullets together:

(Option 2) A P-EDCA STA affiliated with an MLD may start a P-EDCA contention on the link where the STA is operating in a BSS if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

— P-EDCA has been enabled by the AP in the BSS and the P-EDCA non-AP STA has enabled P-EDCA with the AP in the BSS on that link.

— …

Your feedback and suggestions are welcome.

Regards,

Zhenpeng

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