| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Shubho,
Appreciate your feedback. I also do think that the solution can be extended to include other MAPC schemes but for now, Co-TDMA seems to me to be a good starting point as it offers a reasonable amount of flexibility
to the Co-RTWT coordinated AP. The solution intends to provide a means for a Co-RTWT coordinating AP to manage the costs associated with protecting a peer APs’ Co-RTWT SP which I believe encourages more AP coordination. In terms of complexity, I do think that
the current form of the proposal is fairly lightweight with modest additions at the Co-RTWT side and a straightforward reuse of Co-TDMA as-is.
I have had offline discussions with several members and so far the current proposal seems to be a reasonable point of entry.
Would you be okay with keeping the solution simple for now and perhaps consider further extensions in a future submission? Best regards, From: Shubhodeep Adhikari <shubhodeep.adhikari@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
[Updating the subject to 25/2018: CIDs on Co-RWT and Co-TDMA to better describe the topic] Hi Gaius, What you are proposing is an enhancement to both Co-RTWT and Co-TDMA. Further, this principle isn’t restricted to Co-TDMA,
it is applicable to other MAPC schemes like Co-BF and Co-SR too. So, it should be evaluated based on a performance vs complexity metric. If there is indeed performance gain that outweighs the complexity, such an interworking can be specified. So, I request you to first discuss the performance vs. complexity aspect within the group and then propose the change if there
is consensus. Regards, Shubho On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 06:35, Gaius Yao Huang Wee <yaohuang.wee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 |