Hi Taeyoung,
Thanks for the questions. Please see my responses inline.
Best,
Sanket
|
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hi Sanket,
Thanks for your hard work on PDT.
I have some clarification question on Traffic Profile field format. Q1) Could you elaborate the purpose of Allocated TXOP Duration field? Is it for determining the acceptability of Co-TDMA negotiation or determining the duration of TXOP to be shared in Co-TDMA operation? |
|
Q2) Why multiple Traffic Profile is needed for each AC? |
|
|
I think Co-TDMA Coordinating AP just need summarized interval to determine which Co-TDMA coordinated AP can be candidate for polling phase. [Sanket] Could you please elaborate on the design a bit more? [Taeyoung] I can get your point through the above answer. Some traffic may not be represented by a single periodicity.
Best Regards, Taeyoung -------------------------------------------------------
--------- Original Message --------- Sender : 김정준 <jungjun.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> Connectivity표준Lab(SR)/삼성전자 Date : 2025-07-25 17:39 (GMT+9) Title : Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] (2) [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-MAC-CR-Co-TDMA Part 3
Hi Sanket,
Thank you for preparing the document. I would also like to share a suggestion on the PDT.
For Per-AC Traffic Info field, an AC may have different meanings for differenet APs in terms of QoS characteristics or channel access probability. In this context, I think it would be better for a reqeuseting AP to include some more information about ACs.
Best Regards Jungjun Kim
--------- Original Message --------- Sender : 구종회 <jh89.koo@xxxxxxxxxxx> Connectivity표준Lab(SR)/삼성전자 Date : 2025-07-25 17:21 (GMT+9) Title : Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT-MAC-CR-Co-TDMA Part 3
Hi Sanket,
Thanks for working on the Co-TDMA negotiation details. Attached please find my comments and suggestions. Summary of my comments are as follows:
1. We may need to specify the condition to the value of the Rx TXOP Return Support field to 1 in consideration of the Co-TDMA negotiation results (specifically, Rx TXOP Return Support field setting during the Co-TDMA negotiation) with any polled APs in a Co-TDMA ICF.
2. It seems more appropriate if Traffic Control field is included in the MAPC Request Parameter Set field rather than the MAPC Scheme Parameter Set field.
3. It would be much better if we specify reasons to allow multiple Traffic Profiles per AC.
4. Suggest to have ‘Length’ field in the Traffic Profile field for future extensibility.
5. Suggest not to prevent using ‘Alternate’ MAPC Operation Type for future extensibility.
Hi Sanket,
Thanks for your work on Co-TDMA PDT. How about to including “AP TB PPDU Response Supported” into the Co-TDMA Info field? This information seems to be only used for Co-TDMA, isn’t it?
Best Regards, GeonHwan Kim LG Electronics
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
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 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 |
|
|
