MDA comments categorization 2/21/2019 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07-2005-02-000s 2/21/2019 MDA comments categorization Date: 2007-11-13 Authors: Dee Denteneer et al., Philips Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

Abstract MDA has still left a number of unresolved comments 2/21/2019 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07-2005-02-000s 2/21/2019 Abstract MDA has still left a number of unresolved comments In this presentation we categorize them. For some, we propose resolutions as detailed in 07-2867-00. For others, we formulate straw polls which should indicate directions for resolutions. Dee Denteneer et al., Philips Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

2/21/2019 Editorial CIDs: 1820, 2186, 3821, 3824, Example: "The teardown is assumed successful once the ACK is received, or maximum retry attempts are exceeded." conflicts with the statement at the beginning of the clause. Suggested resolution: Delete the sentance since it is stated below that the transmitter assumes the teardown is successful once max retries is exceeded, or an ACK is received. Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

2/21/2019 MDA parameters CIDs: 602, 1626, 3618, 4282, Who establishes the MDA contention parameters? IFS, Cwmin and Cwmax? What happens if there is a conflict? Clause 9.21.9.1: If an MP is the owner of an MDAOP and has an MSDU associated with an MDA session to transmit, it shall attempt to access the channel during the time set up for the MDAOP and obtain a TXOP using EDCA contention and backoff parameters for the Access Category of the MSDU as defined in 9.9.1.3. Accept: MDA now uses the standard access parameters, due to the changes suggested in 07/2356 and 07/2357, so these comments can be considered to be closed due to these contributions. Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

2/21/2019 MAF CIDs 1531, 4656 MAF was defined mainly to limit the negative impact of long MDAOPs on QoS traffic. However, the MAF operation needs coordination among different MPs. A better and easier way to achieve the same result is to define a limit on MDAOPs such that the impact on voice traffic is acceptable. The Mesh Access Fraction is given as MIB parameter. How to make sure that in MESH network MAF parameters are having sensible values? If the MAF parameter of a single MP is set to zero, does it restrict the use of MDA for all MPs? Following comment 1: This has been done, see MDA parameters; also MDA is fair, complexity issue Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

MAF Straw poll: Should we remove MAF Yes: No: I leave it to Dee: 2/21/2019 MAF Straw poll: Should we remove MAF Yes: No: I leave it to Dee: Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

2/21/2019 MDA conflicts CIDs 4855, 4455-2, 3616-2, 569-2, 2. Add a message type that a third party node can use to close the MDA between any pair based on e.g. priority, precedence in time, etc. Resolution: defer need submission unchanged Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

2/21/2019 MDA priority CIDs 536, 534 It must be made clear in the draft that the EDCA parameters assigned to MDA MPs will have higher priority than those of EDCA MPs. Otherwise there would be no incentive to pursue MDA in a mixed mesh. ….. Reject there is Insufficient motivation for claim; simulations (07/0356 and 06/1370) show benefits from the use of MDA; because legacy stations do not know about MDA boundaries, the benefits from higher MDA priority is limited Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

MDA coexistence/efficiency 2/21/2019 MDA coexistence/efficiency CIDs 533, 969, 1533, 2066, 3575, 3617, 4854, 5622, 4455-1, 3616-1, 569-1, It is not clear how efficient the MDA mechanism is and how well it performs in the presence of non-MDA STAs. It looks rather complicated and there is no guarantee that it brings performance advantage in the presence of QSTA traffic. Reject: Insufficient motivation for claim; simulations (07/0356 and 06/1370) show benefits from the use of MDA in mixed (legacy-MDA) scenarios. Dee Denteneer et al., Philips

2/21/2019 Suggested motion Move to adopt the resolution suggested in this presentation and formally presented in 07/2867-00 Dee Denteneer et al., Philips