[STDS-802-11-TGAX] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Allowed puncturing patterns

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Add more info.

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

发件人: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 代表 Yujian (Ross Yu)
发送时间: 2020年4月10日 14:44
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Allowed puncturing patterns

Hi all,

Thanks for the fruitful discussions. Attached please find the current proposed resolution (also in the mentor).

I agree with Tianyu and Xiaogang. Opt a is the case. S80 is arbitrary from the PHY point of view. That’s also the comment from Sigurd in his previous email to the reflector.

Pasted email:

For the BW indication, the only change I proposed is to reflect the commenter’s request to clarify the meaning for case 7.

Like Tianyu mentioned, it may be ok to add some furthre restrications that S80 cannot be fully punctured for case 6 and 7, if the group wants. But that is not part of the commenter’s comment.

For the capability indication,

I just try to reflect the same description as the BW indication, nothing more:

from

Change to: (B2 aligns with case 6, B3 aligns with case 7)

All your further comments are welcome.

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

发件人: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 代表 Chen, Xiaogang C
发送时间: 2020年4月10日 5:48
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Allowed puncturing patterns

Hi Mark,

I didn’t intended to complicate the CR. To make it simple, let’s focus on clarify the definition in current D6.0.

So forget b,c,d,e…

BRs,

Xiaogang.

From: *** 802.11 TGax - HEW - High Efficiency WLAN *** <STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Tianyu Wu
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:15 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Allowed puncturing patterns

Resend my understanding. Some “-“ missing in last email.

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--????

7) --?????? but not -------- (at least one x outside primary 40).

On Apr 9, 2020, at 11:12 AM, Tianyu Wu <tianyu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your summary. My understanding of current spec:

4) -x—

5) --x- or —x

6) -x--????

7) --?????? but not -------- (at least one x outside primary 40).

For 6)-x--???? and 7) --??????

The detailed puncture channel(s) are determined by AP and signaled in HE-SIG-B.

I think it might be ok to have some further clarification such as don't puncture the whole S80 or the whole S40 + S80, which means to disallow the following modes:

6) -x--xxxx and

7) --??xxxx or —-xxxxxx

I am in general not in favor of defining more artificial rules for puncturing modes at this stage of 11ax.

Thanks.

Tianyu

On Apr 9, 2020, at 10:41 AM, Mark RISON <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is the follow-up to the teleconf discussion just now, to

attempt to reach consensus on which puncturing patterns are and

are not allowed.

STRAWMAN PROPOSAL:

If the primary 20 MHz channel is the leftmost one, and x means

punctured, - means not punctured and ? means can be punctured,

then these correspond to only allowing the following patterns

in each case (obviously the patterns will get rearranged if the

P20 is not the leftmost one) for the value of the Bandwidth

field in the HE-SIG-A field of an HE MU PPDU:

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--???? but not -x--xxxx

7) --x-???? but not --x-xxxx, or

   ---x???? but not ---xxxxx, or

   --xx???? but not --xxxxxx

During the teleconf I think I heard some variants proposed (calling

the one above z):

a) Allow full puncturing of S80, i.e.:

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--???? including -x--xxxx

7) --x-???? including --x-xxxx, or

   ---x???? including ---xxxxx, or

   --xx???? including --xxxxxx

b) Don't allow any puncturing of S80 (maybe the D1.0 wording?), i.e.:

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x------

7) --x----- or

   ---x---- or

   --xx----

c) Allow "any 2" puncturing for the 7 case (I think I heard something

like that?), i.e.:

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--???? [all x for ? TBD]

7) --x-???? where exactly one of the ?s is a x, or

   ---x???? where exactly one of the ?s is a x, or

   ----???? where exactly two of the ?s are an x, or

   --xx----

d) Or was it "at least 2" puncturing for the 7 case, i.e.:

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--???? [all x for ? TBD]

7) --x-???? where between 1 and 3 (4 TBD) of the ?s are xs, or

   ---x???? where between 1 and 3 (4 TBD) of the ?s are xs, or

   ----???? where between 2 and 3 (4 TBD) of the ?s are xs, or

   --xx???? where between 0 and 3 (4 TBD) of the ?s are xs

Plus a variant to any of the above:

e) For any/all of the above, don't allow more than 2 adjacent xs

for the 160M case (obviously N/A for 80 and I think also for 80+80)

Please select your option (z or a-d, plus e) or otherwise describe

your understanding.

Happy Easter, and best wishes to you, your colleagues and your families,

Mark

--

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN   English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre       Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS      Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI                             WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1