| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Kerstin and Guogang,
As fragmentation may be used, PNàPNs
(or PN(s)). For the phrase “regardless of whether the corresponding MPDUs were successfully received”, as in Guogang’s text, I think it’s better to add “by the non-AP MLD” thereafter for
clarification. If the non-AP MLD sets the
Request DL SN Not Transferred field to 0, the current AP MLD shall include the corresponding
TID, SN, and PNs with each MSDU or A-MSDU that it forwards
to the target AP MLD for retransmission of a Data frame whose SN is within the current AP MLD’s transmit window defined by
WinStartO and WinEndO. If the non-AP MLD sets the
Request DL SN Not Transferred field to 1, the following operations apply when the DL draining period terminates: • The current AP MLD shall discard all buffered MSDUs for the non-AP MLD that it has already transmitted, regardless of whether
the corresponding MPDUs were successfully received by the non-AP MLD. It
may forward the remaining MSDUs, which have not been transmitted, to the target AP MLD in the order in which they arrived at the current AP MLD’s MAC SAP. For each TID, the target AP MLD shall prioritize transmission of these forwarded MSDUs over other MSDUs
for the same non-AP MLD and TID. • The non-AP MLD shall pass all MSDUs or A-MSDUs buffered in the receive reordering buffer to the next stage of MAC processing. Best regards, tomo From: Kerstin Johnsson (Nokia) <000039130cefe96b-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Guogang, I also have a question on
CIDs 19894/19902. First, I noticed a field-name typo: the field is
Request DL SN Not Transferred — there is no “Next” in the field name. Also, for value
1, the current text says that the non-AP MLD requests that the next SN
is transferred, while §9.4.2.364.2
defines value 1 as a request not to transfer the next SN. So I think that sentence just needs to be flipped. I also wondered if it might help to simplify the wording of the two cases a bit, just to make the intended behavior easier to follow. Perhaps something like:
I think this keeps the same intent, but makes the distinction between the value-0 and value-1 cases a little more explicit. BR, Kerstin 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 |