IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs 802.11 REVmc Initial Sponsor ballot - Proposed resolutions for some SB0 power saving comments Date: 2015-12-07 Author(s): Name Company Address Phone email Emily Qi Intel Corporation Emily.h.qi@intel.com CID Page Clause Resn Status Comment Proposed Change Ad-hoc 5212 "The request may be sent for ACs for the ACM subfield is 0." This statement is not really needed, but the converse one is. Replace with: "The request may be sent for ACs for which the ACM subfield is 0; the request shall not be sent for ACs for which the ACM subfield is 1." MAC Discussion Context at 1552.34: The cited sentence is nothing to do with the context. Agreed with the commenter that this statement is not really needed here. However, the revised sentence suggested from the commenter is incorrect: “….. the request shall not be sent for ACs for which the ACM subfield is 1”. How to send ADDTS request and relationship with ACM values are described in 8.4.2.28 EDCA Parameter Set element and 9.22.4 Admission Control at the HC. As an example, in 8.4.2.28 EDCA Parameter Set element
rules about receive operation. Discussion Agree with commenter that adding a statement might be helpful. However, I don’t think “also” is needed. Cited clause: Proposed resolution: Revised. At the end of cited clause 10.2.2.10, add a paragraph/sentence: "For receive operation using the U-APSD coexistence mechanism, see additional procedures in 10.2.2.5.2.” CID Page Clause Resn Status Comment Proposed Change Ad-hoc 10.2.2.6 "The base the aging function on the Listen Interval specified by the STA in the (Re)Association Request frame or the Interval specified by the non-AP STA in the WNM-Sleep Mode Request frame." -- this statement is a subset of the previous may, and is therefore strictly unnecessary. Reword: "The AP might base..." MAC Discussion Cited text: Agree with commenter. Proposed resolution: Sleep
Rejected. This sentence applies to the aging function. The previous sentence is much broader. This is not duplication. CID Page Clause Resn Status Comment Proposed Change Ad-hoc 10.2.2.8 Dual beacon is deprecated. This para should acknowledge this. Add to this para "The use of the dual beacon (i.e., transmission of both and STBC Beacon frames) mechanism is deprecated." MAC Discussion Cited text: The dual beacon deprecation is acknowledged in 8.4.2.56 HT Operation element, see: There is no need to acknowledge the deprecation in every location in the spec. Proposed resolution: Rejected. The deprecation is already acknowleged in 8.4.2.56 and 10.1.3.2. Comment Proposed Change Owning Ad-hoc I congratulate the WG on inventing the following unique power-saving mechanisms: 1. IBSS 2. Infrastructure PS-Poll 3. U-APSD 4. U-APSD with coexistence mechanism 5. S-APSD 6. TDLS 7. Mesh 8. PCP Add several new mechanisms. For example, during one beacon interval, a STA might save power by transmitting only bits containing zero, and transmit the one bits in the next beacon interval. Those cleverer than I can see this is a fruitful field of endeavor. Be creative ... you know you want to. MAC I 1
CID Page Clause Comment Proposed Change Owning Ad-hoc 10.2.2.17 What is the value of the "Overridden" status code in the TIM Broadcast Response element? Add a NOTE to say this is treated exactly the same as Accept by the recipient, e.g. "NOTE---A Status field indicating Overridden can be treated exactly the same as one indicating Accept." MAC Discussion Cited text at 1569.57: The the value of the “Overriden” is defined in Table 8-200: The behaviour of the STA receiving “Overridden” is different from the behaviour of receiving “Accept”. According to 1570.1: However, when the STA receives “Overridden”, it cannot ignore the TIM Broadcast Interval. The TIM Broadcast Interval specified in the TIM Broadcast Resposne element be used by the STA. Proposed resolution: Rejected. The behaviour of the STA receiving “Overridden” might be different from the behaviour of the STA receiving “Accept”, see 1570.1 CID Page Clause Comment Proposed Change Owning Ad-hoc 10.2 "A STA that has transmitted a frame to an AP with which it is not associated and from which it expects a response shall remain in the awake state until such a response is received or until the procedure has timed out." -- equivalent statements need to be made for cases Add similar statements for IBSS, PBSS and perhaps also MBSS MAC Discussion In IBSS, there is no “associated” concept. Therefore, similar statement won’t apply. The basic approach of power management in IBSS is described in 10.2.3. There is no need to add a similar sentence for IBSS. For MBSS, s similar description is already covered in 13.14.8.3 Operation in deep sleep mode for nonpeer mesh STAs: