| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Yue, Thank you for your contribution and for handling my CID #9359. I think your CR does not fully address my comment regarding the support of the TXSPG feature by the P2P LLI.
My point was to clarify if the P2P LLI can be used by the TXSPG requesting STA to indicate that its P2P group has pending P2P traffic to transmit. While the current 11bn draft does not appear to prevent this usage, it would be beneficial to explicitly clarify that it is allowed especially since the TXSPG is a
newly introduced concept. A simple note in 37.22.1 could state that the P2P LLI can be used by a TXSPG requesting STA to indicate that the P2P group of which the non-AP STA is a member of has pending P2P traffic to transmit. In addition, I believe a clarification is needed regarding the use of the ICF by the AP to trigger LLI feedback. Specifically, it would be helpful to state that the
AP can trigger LLI feedback from a P2P group by addressing the ICF to the TXSPG requesting STA and including the AID12 of the P2P group in the ICF. Could you please let me know your thoughts on these points? Do you agree that these clarifications would help avoid ambiguity in the specification, or am I missing something
in your proposed CR? Thank you for your feedback. Best regards, From: Sunshine Qi <sunshine.qi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear all, Thank you for the discussion during the meeting on the past Friday. The latest version r4 has been uploaded for your review.
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-0037-04-00bn-mac-cr-lb291-p2p-lli.docx We would like to clarify that the
proposal does not mandate any AP behavior. The proposed change is only a transmitter-side clarification. How the AP uses the received indication still remains implementation-specific.
The current text states that a non-AP STA may indicate its traffic related to one or more SCS streams, while when multiple P2P SCS streams are associated with different links, the link scope of
“one or more SCS streams” is not stated explicitly. The intent is to clarify that, a P2P LLI transmitted on one link does not imply pending P2P traffic associated with another link, since the corresponding P2P transmission is link-specific.
This differs from UL case.
This is particularly relevant because the UL and P2P LLI clauses use similar wording, while their transmission characteristics are different.
------------------- For example ----------------------- P2P SCS1 is associated with Link 1. P2P SCS2 is associated with Link 2. If a P2P LLI is transmitted on Link 1, it is unclear 1) whether the indication is limited to pending traffic for SCS1, 2) or it may also represent pending traffic for SCS2.
We clarify that a P2P LLI transmitted on a link represents pending traffic related to one ore more P2P SCS streams associated with that link.
Comments and feedback are welcome. Regards, Yue Qi (Samsung) 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 |