Hi TGbn fans,
We had discussions in the TGbn session on Dec 2. Thank you for your questions and concerns. I collected the following comments. Please see the responses
in line.
-
The TXOP holder on NPCA PCH and the target STA may switch to the NPCA PCH for different OBSS PPDUs, so the history cannot be used to infer the target STA’s
behavior next time.
Xiangxin: I agree to the comment. However, the TXOP holder may make a better prediction
for the next time if both at this time and at the previous time the target STA switched to the NPCA PCH when the TXOP holder switched to the NPCA PCH for OBSS PPDUs from a same TA.
-
The TXOP holder on NPCA PCH and the target STA both switching to the NPCA PCH for an OBSS PPDU from a transmitter this time does not mean they will both do the switch for an OBSS PPDU from
the same transmitter next time because of mobility.
Xiangxin: I also agree to the comment. However, IEEE 802.11 is a slow moving system.
Many time STAs are even static. The proposed mechanism would work well for static scenario.
Besides, the resolution introduces a valid history period. The NPCA behavior of the
target STA outside of the valid history can’t be used for prediction. The length of the valid history period may be set freely
by implementors. So there is pretty much freedom to fit different scenarios. The mechanism can also be turned off by setting the length to 0. BTW, it is turned off by default.
-
Either when a TXOP initiator STA changes or the recipient of the transmitted PPDU changes, ICF is still required.
Xiangxin: Yes, ICF is still needed in your scenarios. The resolution does not touch
these scenarios.
If you have further questions, please feel free to let me know. Thanks!
BR,
Xiangxin Gu
Institute of Communication Technology
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