| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Liwen,
Please allow me to jump in.
While I generally agree to avoid listing all the rules again, changing “shall” to “should” (or “may”) for the transitioning back condition in DPS that Atsushi raised makes sense
to me. When the DPS Transition Delay was introduced, was the transition intended to be mandatory?
If not, how about changing as follows? A DPS non-AP STA in HC mode triggered by an ICF carrying no Feedback User Info field with Feedback Type field equal to Co-BF
feedback or Co-SR feedback shall follow the EMLSR rules of switching back to listening mode (see 35.3.17 (Enhanced multi-link single-radio (EMLSR) operation))
— the EMLSR Transition Delay is replaced by the DPS Transition Delay. By this change, the STA can choose not to transition back, I believe… Best regards, tomo From: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>
Hi Atsushi, I understand your position. It seems more members prefer option 1 during the call. It is difficult to get the consensus of option 2. Best Regards, Liwen NXP Confidential From: SHIRAKAWA Atsushi <shirakawa.atsushi@mail.sharp>
Hi Liwen and folks intrested in CID 17125 Thank you for your presentation today. Regading CID 17125, I prefer Option2 rather than Option1 and want to ask for opinions. My first impression is that clause 35.3.17 is large (five pages) and searching for corresponding switching back rule takes time and precise should-be-reference part
is little ambiguous. If we put corresponding part like CRD (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1765-01-00bn-lb296-subclause-37-17-2-2-cids.docx ),
easy to read and we can know exact descripiton. If we go step further, I think "shall" is
too strong and prefer to mitigate condition. Replacing
"shall" with "may" or "should" may be one solution. In the case of EMLSR, non-AP STA is required to switch back to listening mode as soon as possible to acquire next idle medium to reduce latency. I think
"shall" requirement is rational. But in the case of DPS, non-AP STA may prefer to keep HC mode to prepare for next TXOP, that is non-AP STAs decision depending on its performance
ability. So I feel "shall" is too strong. Current spec text is below, ===== IEEE802.11bn Draft2.0 ============================= 37.17.2.2 DPS operation for
non-AP STAs (skip) A DPS non-AP STA in HC mode
triggered by an ICF carrying no Feedback User Info field with Feedback Type field equal to Co-BF
feedback or Co-SR feedback shall follow
the EMLSR rules of switching back to listening
mode (see 35.3.17 (Enhanced multi-link single-radio (EMLSR) operation)) to transition back to LC mode with
the following exception: — the EMLSR Transition
Delay is replaced by the DPS Transition Delay. ===== IEEE802.11bn Draft2.0 ============================= BR. Atsushi. 差出人:
Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx> Hi all, Please find the comment resolutions for subclause 37.17.2.2 in 11-26/1765. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1765-00-00bn-lb296-subclause-37-17-2-2-cids.docx If you have comments, please let me know. Hi Alfred, Please add it to the agenda. Best Regards, Liwen NXP Confidential
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
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 |