| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Thanks Tianyu.
From: tianyu@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:tianyu@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 1:13 PM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>; Sigurd Schelstraete <sschelstraete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 4 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)
Hi Wook Bong,
Nice catch, I will update the minutes.
Thanks.
Tianyu
On Apr 14, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Tianyu, Sigurd, and Edward,
Thank you for your effort.
There is one thing needs to be fixed.
During SP#7 in PHY, there was request to change “and” to “and/or” as in below discussion.
Can you update the SP text accordingly?
SP#7: SP3 from 0020r3
• Do you agree that 11be STA can recognize the
fullpreamble puncturing pattern it needs by using the BW field and puncturing information of U-SIG and EHT-SIG field in Multiple user transmission?– Details for how to convey the puncturing information is TBD.
Discussion for SP:
C: Comment to remove “full”. STA only need its own information not the full information of all STAs.
A: Ok. Updated SP text.
C: Does it exclude any other options?
A: This is general concept. Other than U-SIG and EHT-SIG we do not have plan.
C: Does this also include SU?
A: No, only for MU. SU case already run.
C: Change and to “and/or”.
C: “11be STA” do you mean only intended 11be STA or any 11be STA that received the PPDU?
A: We don’t think we need to differentiate the cases here.
C: The question is if a STA don’t know where is the primary channel, can they find out the puncture pattern?
A: Need further discussion.
Best regards,
Wook Bong Lee
From: Edward Au [mailto:edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 12:53 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 4 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)
Hello,
Revision 4 is posted at:
This revision incorporates the straw polls conducted in the PHY ad-hoc on April 13. Potential changes to sections 2.2.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3 and 2.5 based on the passed straw polls are included. Note that there is no straw poll in the MAC ad-hoc on April 13.
Regards,
Edward
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:14 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
Revision 3 is posted at:
This latest version incorporates the straw polls conducted in the PHY ad-hoc on April 9. There is no straw poll conducted during the MAC ad-hoc on April 9. Potential changes to section 2.4.2 based on the passed straw polls are included.
Have a great weekend,
Edward
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:22 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello all,
Revision 2 is posted at:
This latest version incorporates the straw polls conducted in the PHY ad-hoc on April 6. There is no straw poll conducted during the MAC ad-hoc on April 6.
Regards,
Edward
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:45 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Alfred and all,
Revision 1 is based that incorporates the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call on March 30, and the joint call on April 2. Sections 6.5 and 9.4 are updated accordingly.
Regards,
Edward
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:42 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Alfred and all,
I've posted an initial version of the document that summarizes all the straw poll results (between January 30 and March 30, except the MAC ad-hoc call on March 30), and potential changes to the latest version of the Specification Framework Document (19/1262r8):
Suggestions are welcome.
Regards,
Edward
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1