Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] 1964r1, P-EDCA part 2

Hi Dmitry,

Thanks for your response.
(a) I don’t think we have to list all possible “periods.” We only need a timing-feasibility check condition.
(b) Yes, I think there should be a minimum threshold that includes, for example, DS-CTS + contention + RTS/CTS (or ICF/ICR) + data (the shortest possible PPDU) + BA. If the remaining available time is less than this threshold (perhaps we can use “81 µs + Data + Ack” as a basis for defining it), P-EDCA contention should not be started, as doing so would result in certain failure.

Best regards,
Pei Zhou

TCL



Akhmetov, Dmitry <dmitry.akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx> 于2026年11月3日周二 17:46写道：

I’m afraid that this is not an easy as it can be seen.

You are asking for a) generalized rule b) for a STA to ensure that there is sufficient time remains to complete the P-EDCA contention + data exchange + all control and response frames.

 

For (a) – Mikhail already tried to that for rTWT and after numerous tries the group decided not to add any additional rules. Any “generalized rule ,which take into account “sufficient time, regardless of particular reason “ will include rTWT one way or another. Additionally, do you propose to explicitly list all possible “periods” when this need to be applied? i.e. for rTWT, do DUO, for PUO, for NPCA and any other modes?

For (b) – how this is can be estimated? Do you propose that time  equal  to (DS-CTS + contention+ rts/cts (or ICF/ICR (which rate?)) + data (shortest possible on MCS13) + ba) shall be less than some threshold? Are you proposing to define such  threshold?

NPCA has one from the start, but P-EDCA has not.

 

I personally see this as an unnecessary complication

Dmitry

 

From: 周培 <zhoupei36@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2026 11:05 PM
To: Akhmetov, Dmitry <dmitry.akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] 1964r1, P-EDCA part 2

 

Hi Dmitry,


Thank you for the updated proposal. I would like to clarify why I believe CID 14072 remains valid and should be reconsidered.

Before initiating P-EDCA contention, a STA should assess whether sufficient time remains to complete the P-EDCA contention procedure and at least one data exchange, including any required control and response frames. If insufficient time remains, the STA should refrain from initiating P-EDCA contention. An explicit initiation condition would help avoid such unnecessary attempts and their associated overhead.

The earlier rTWT discussion cited in the proposed resolution concerns restrictions governed by the rTWT mechanism. My comment addresses the broader question of whether sufficient time remains, regardless of the particular reason limiting that time. We therefore do not need to enumerate individual causes or modify the existing rTWT rules.

A similar principle already exists for NPCA. Section 37.18.3 requires the remaining PPDU/TXOP duration, after subtracting switching and switch-back delays, to exceed the NPCA Minimum Duration Threshold as a condition for switching to the NPCA primary channel.
This provides a precedent for checking the usable time before initiating a specific channel access procedure (i.e., NPCA and P-EDCA).

I therefore believe that the proposed resolution of CID 14072 should be reconsidered. Thank you.


Best regards,
Pei Zhou
TCL

 

Akhmetov, Dmitry <dmitry.akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx> 于2026年11月3日周二 08:30写道：

Hi everyone,

 

I’ve just uploaded r1 of 1964 doc , part 2 of P-EDCA clause CIDs

 

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1964-01-00bn-lb296-cr-for-37-2-2-p-edca-part-2.docx

 

Please let me know if you have questions or comments,

 

Dmitry

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