| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Robert, In D0.3, in Chapter 26.1.4, P99, L28, it says:
Support for the HE extended range SU PPDU format is TBD (mandatory or optional). Whilst we already passed a motion (PHY motion #155) in 2016 March meeting:
•
Move to modify the SFD as follows:
•
There are only three pre-HE-STF preamble format definition
–
SU Format(mandatory)/Trigger based UL
–
MU format (mandatory)
–
Extended range SU format (mandatory)
•
Move: David Yang Second: Ross Jian Yu
•
Results: 49/4/23
•
Motion Passes Hence this TBD should be changed to mandatory. Could you also can handle this in D0.4? Regards Ross 发件人: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxx]
代表 Stacey, Robert Hello Afred, Thanks for the thorough review. I have addressed everything in a pending D0.4 – see embedded comments. -Robert From: Alfred Asterjadhi [mailto:asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx]
Hello Robert, Thanks a lot for preparing D0.3 of the TGax draft. Please find below a list of suggestions to improve the draft's alignment with motioned concepts and improve it editorially (Page and line references refer to the Redlined version of D0.3 with respect to D0.2): P11L62: "might use" --> "can use" as instructed by (#172) done P12L01 the following motioned text is missing: "An HE non-AP STA uses the Queue Size subfield to indicate the amount of buffered traffic intended for the STA identified by the receiver address of the frame containing
the QoS Control field." as instructed by a motion in 779r6 (TGax agenda) Added P12L11: "may remain constant" --> "can remain constant" as instructed by (#172) [the reason was changed is because in clause 9 there should be no normative behavior statements]. Also the underline should not be for all
the sentence as part of it is baseline REVmc. done P19L19-23: It seems the text is not inline with resolution of (#340). From a quick check B0 to B4 indicate the 0 to 31 dB range in the motioned document while in the draft the whole subfield signals it which seems in
conflict to me. corrected P22L60: Please underline "Multi-STA BlockAck" in the last column of the table. done P23L08: subclause heading should be moved to P21L02. fixed P25L57: This note seems to better fit if located in P25L63. moved P26L17: "If the Ack Type subfield is 1, then the Block Ack Starting Sequence Control and Block Ack Bitmap subfields are present." --> " If the Ack Type subfield is 0...". fixed P26L58: " When B0 of the .... is 1" --> " When B0 of the .... is 0" done P27L06: " When B0 of the .... is 0" --> " When B0 of the .... is 1" done P27L25: Amendment to subclause 9.3.1.20 is missing (see 11-16-773r2) Added (editing instructions CID #1222 were not clear – edits were in different parts of the Word doc) P28L62: Table heading found at the bottom of the table. Please move at the top inline with baseline (several tables had this inconsistency). Fixed a bunch of these P31L36: There seems to be missing motioned text: "When operating 40MHz in 2.4GHz band, two SR fields, SR field 1 and SR field 2, are set to same values. When operating 80+80MHz, SR field 3 is set to same value as SR field
1, and SR field 4 is set to to same value as SR field 2." P31L45-48: I am taking an AI to suggest the author of 16/780r1 to fix this inconsistency. Good for you P32L17: A motioned text is missing: "Per User Info fields with AID = 0 shall be allocated only after Per User Info fields with AID not equals to 0, if any, and before the MAC padding field, if present." Shall statements in Frame formats. Tut-tut. Added. P32L48: Editorial "B12 the first bit is set to" -> B12 is set to". done P34:L1: Bit locations added on top of field format dont follow baseline conventions. Please list them in increasing order. Updated bit numbering P37L44-60: Would be good to list them as items of the paragraph in L38. Unchanged. The meaning of the statement “follows the RU index in Table 26-8 in an increasing order” and its relationship to the subsequent statements
is not clear. I suspect we just need to assign new meaning to the indexes rather than try twist the description for a particular index in the table to mean something similar but different. A 242-tone RU HE trigger-based PPDU is not the same thing as a 20 MHz
non-HT PPDU even if they occupy roughly the same spectrum. P40-P41: Subclauses 9.4.1.62 and 9.4.1.63 were amended by document 11-16-0836r1, however these changes are missing in the draft. CR Motion 28 not present in database. Added (database needs update) P40-P41: Similarly a new subclause 9.4.1.64 was added by the same docuemnt 836r1 but is missing. CR Motion 28 not present in database. Added (database needs update) P40-P41: Similarly a subclause 9.4.1.6x was added by document 11-16-773r2 but is missing. Added P46: Some HE Capabilities indications added by document 11-16-897r1 are missing in the draft. Added P52L62-65: This paragraph needs to be removed due to addition of paragraph in P53L1-5. P52L11: Document 836r1 adds a line for HE Action field in Table 9-46 which is missing in D0.3.Following hte same trend it also added a couple subclauses dependent of 9.6 that are missing. Changes from 16/836r1 incorporated P54L2: Please underline: "A HE MU PPDU does not carry more than one A-MPDU that contains one or more MPDUs soliciting an immediate response that is not carried in an HE trigger-based PPDU." done P60L63..: Some changes of document 861r1 are missing in this subclause: "more than one" -> "one or more". No change (reference not accurate) P64L1: Addition of this sentence is missing: "A value of 3 in the Control ID subfield when the transmitting STA follows the corresponding buffer status report procedure, as described in 25.5.2.5 (HE buffer status feeback
operation for UL MU)." as instructed by 806r0. Added P64L33: the following addition is missing "...across all MPDUs with equal value of the TID subfield" at the end of the sentence as instructed by 806r0. Added P64L40: Some motioned text is missing: "When an HE STA successfully receives the corresponding acknowledgement frame in response to the MPDU sent in HE trigger based PPDU, the backoff for the associated EDCAF resumes
the backoff counter countdown. When an HE STA does not receive the corresponding acknowledgement frame in response to the MPDU sent in HE trigger based PPDU, the backoff for the associated EDCAF resumes the backoff counter countdown. If an HE STA does not
successfully receive the corresponding acknowledgement frame in response to the MPDU sent in an HE trigger based PPDU, the short retry counters and long retry counters for the associated EDCAF are not changed." Motioned text added P74L34: To keep consistency either put the paragraph as bulleted list (as instructed by 828r0) or simply replace "that contains. One" with that contains one". Bulleted lists are exactly that: lists. An enumerated set. Changed to “that contains one”. P75L54: Please replace "may support" with "shall support" as instructed in 828r0. Also please classify as depending item the sentence starting with "The term oustanding..." Changed “may” to “shall”. Not sure how to classify cited sentence. P78L4-14: CHanges as instructed by 917r1 are missing in D0.3. Motioned text added. P80L43-47: It seems the addition of this paragraph is in the wrong subclause. Seems the instruction was to add to 25.10.4. Instruction was to place in 25.5.2.2.2 (see 16/725r3). There is a technical issue here. A requirement is being placed on “The responding STA”. Responding to what? Presumably a Trigger frame given
the context of the resolving document. Anyway… something to fix in the next round of comment resolution :-o Also please replace "Basic Trigger variant Trigger frame" with "Basic variant Trigger frame" throughout. I think this is a bad idea and will reading difficult. I think the term Trigger frame is perfectly acceptable. If we want to be more specific then Basic Trigger frame. We don’t talk about a “Compressed
BlockAck variant Block Ack frame” or “Multi-STA BlockAck variant BlockAck frame” for similar reasons. P84L62: Editorial addition seems to not be inline with the text of 806r0: extra "one of the following" and removal of the "either" "or" at the start of the items that follow. Since either or is not exclusive the addition
of "one of the following would forbid to allow both which is not the intention of the document. Lists are not sentences broken up by dashes. They are enumerated sets. The introductory sentence identifies how the set applies. Hence the editorial change. Now, does either/or mean “either … or…
but not both”? Similarly does “one of” mean “one and only one of”. In both cases no. If we want to be explicit we can modify the introductory sentence. P86L43: I am taking an AI to suggest the author of 16/773r2 to fix this inconsistency. Nice P90L11: An added subclause 25.6.2 by 16/773r2 is missing in D0.3. Added Hope this feedback helps to improve the subsequent version of the TGax draft. PS: I did not go through the PHY subclause 26. Best Regards, Alfred On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Osama AboulMagd <Osama.AboulMagd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX and then press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect. Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX and then press the LEAVE button. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ |