| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi, Tomo, This particular paragraph is following a more general paragraph that talks about simple transmission at the same time on 2 NSTR links (and this would cause interference problems). This paragraph is specifically calling out the potentially subtle special case, where a transmission will cause a response from the peer, and that response would be aligned in time such that it would force RX on this link while TX on another NSTR link is already happening. This paragraph says that such a special case may be detected by the STA and cause the STA to not transmit the original frame (that would cause the response). So, in this special case, we are trying to be clear about why the NSTR situation is a problem. I don’t think adding that new phrase does anything to change the scenario, it is just trying to more clearly explain the problem that can happen in this scenario. Mark From: tomoko.adachi.b99@mail.toshiba <tomoko.adachi.b99@mail.toshiba> Hi Mark, I think the addition of “on reception of the possible response to the frame” is not needed. This is about the case for an MLD with an NSTR link pair, and a NSTR link pair is where links don’t have enough isolation between each other and self-interference or cross-link interference occurs by transmission on the other link. The intent here was to mention this primary problem, from what I believe. The interference caused by reception of a response frame to the other link is a secondary problem. 3.2 Definitions specific to IEEE Std 802.11 … (#11be)(#211)nonsimultaneous transmit and receive link pair (NSTR link pair): A pair of links corresponding to stations (STAs) affiliated with a multi-link device (MLD) for which the receiver requirements specified in 36.3.23 (Receiver specification) are not met on one of the links when a STA affiliated with the MLD is transmitting on the other link. … Best regards, tomo From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector --- Mike (all), I have coordinated with Chaoming, and I believe REVmf CID 1112 is ready for the group to review. Please see below, and let me know if anyone has any concerns. Mark -- As a reminder, the REVmf group looked at the comment (quoted below) in Antwerp, and the response was that adding more words to the sentence is making an existing mess of this huge, run-on sentence, even worse.
Here is my suggestion, including the (Chaoming (commenter) requested) addition of clarifying text (highlighted). CID 1112. Revised. Replace the (single!) cited sentence: A non-AP STA affiliated with a non-AP MLD operating on a link of an NSTR link pair that has gained the right to initiate transmission of a frame of a specific AC on a link through the rules for EDCA backoff in 10.23.2.4 (Obtaining an EDCA TXOP) or that is enabled by an AP that is a TXOP holder to use a portion of the obtained TXOP following the rules for TXS procedure in 35.2.1.2 (Triggered TXOP sharing (TXS) procedure) may choose not to transmit any frame corresponding to that AC due to expected interference caused by the transmission at the non-AP STA operating on one of the links of the NSTR link pair within the non-AP MLD and due to lack of availability of an alternative frame in the queue of the link that would not introduce the opportunity for such interference. with: A non-AP STA affiliated with a non-AP MLD operating on a link of an NSTR link pair that has gained the right to initiate transmission of a frame of a specific AC on a link through: · the rules for EDCA backoff in 10.23.2.4 (Obtaining an EDCA TXOP), or · that is enabled by an AP that is a TXOP holder to use a portion of the obtained TXOP following the rules for TXS procedure in 35.2.1.2 (Triggered TXOP sharing (TXS) procedure) may choose not to transmit any frame corresponding to that AC, if: · there would be expected interference on reception of the possible response to the frame caused by the transmission at another non-AP STA operating on one of the links of the NSTR link pair; and · there is no availability of an alternative frame in the queue of the link that would not introduce the opportunity for such interference. To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 |