| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Kerstin, Thanks for your discussion. Please find my response inline. Regards 发件人: Kerstin Johnsson (Nokia) [mailto:kerstin.johnsson@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi Guogang, Thanks. I agree that “received from the DS” is not the right way to distinguish the two sets of MSDUs, since the forwarded MSDUs also originally came from the DS. I think your old #5025 addresses the part I’m concerned about. Could we
keep a forwarding-complete indication, while still leaving the actual forwarding policy implementation-dependent? For example:
I also think the second sentence of your old #5025 is useful.
If the target AP MLD wants to stop waiting and start transmitting other MSDUs, it could request the current AP MLD to stop forwarding for that TID. But I think it should then wait for the forwarding-complete indication before assigning SNs to the other MSDUs,
since some forwarded MSDUs may already be in flight. [HGG]Maybe the target AP MLD doesn’t need to wait for the forwarding-complete indication even some forwarded MSDUs are in flight. In this case, what we need to define
is, the target AP MLD shall discard any forwarded MSDUs if the target AP MLD has assigned SNs to the other MSDUs.
On leaving this to implementation, I think there is an important distinction:
Otherwise, the target AP MLD has no way to know whether an older MSDU is still coming from the current AP MLD. If it assigns SNs to newer MSDUs too early, we can get the packet 1/2/3 ordering problem
we discussed. “Prioritize transmission” does not fix that if the SNs have already been assigned. Similarly, a request to stop forwarding is not enough by itself, because forwarded MSDUs may already be in flight. The target AP MLD needs confirmation that forwarding for that TID has actually completed. So I think your old
#5025, or something similar, is still needed. It preserves implementation flexibility for the forwarding algorithm while defining the minimum coordination needed to guarantee in-order delivery. [HGG] I agree with you. I will add the text to describe this part in the next version. We can keep discussion. Thanks! Best regards, 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 |