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

[STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答���: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 32 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

Hi Wookbong,

 

It is deleted per Ron’s request. Please see the attached email.

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Wook Bong Lee [mailto:wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年6月24日 7:50
收件人: Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ron Porat <ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 32 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi Ross and Ron,

 

I have few questions.

 

@Ross,

I found following rows are missing in the table.

52

52

_

106

106

_

52

52

106

_

106

Is this intentional or just missing?

 

@Ron,

BW

RU

Mandatory in OFDMA for:

80 MHz

484+242

Non-AP STA only

160 MHz

996+484

Non-AP STA only

240 MHz

2×996+484

Non-AP STA only

320 MHz

3×996+484, 3×996 (any 3)

Non-AP STA only

In 240MHz 2x996+484, 2x996 shall be contiguous or it can be discontinuous?

Likewise, in 320MHz 3x996+484, 3x997 shall be contiguous or it can be discontinuous?

If we allow discontinuous, then the number of possible RU combination will be increased quite a lot.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

From: Yujian (Ross Yu) [mailto:ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 11:48 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 32 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi Edward and all,

 

During today’s PHY ad hoc discussion. For the RU allocation baseline table in SP58, Ron suggested to replace the MRU combinations marked by orange color to a merging cell because later in the spec, we cannot use color. Attached please find the changes. It is all editorial. So Editor please make the corresponding changes before running the motions.

 

I keep the orange color for now to make people easy to track. We can remove the color anytime. Please be noted that I use 52+26 when a left RU52 and a right RU 26 are combined, and use 26+52 when a left RU26 and a right RU52 are combined. Similarly for 106+26 and 26+106. I differentiate them to make people clear which two original RUs are combined to this MRU.

 

In the second part, I have a backup table, it further merges four newly passed SPs in today’s PHY ad hoc. The editor can use this for SFD later if all the above motions pass.

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Edward Au [mailto:edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年6月23日 1:30
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 32 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi,

 

Revision 32 is posted:

This revision:

[1]  moves SP#91, SP#92, and SP#93 to section 6.2 (a new section on Multi-link discovery),

[2]  moves all contents in section 3.2 to section 12 (a new section on frame format),

[3]  adds the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc calls on June 15, June 17, and June 18, 2020, and updates the text in sections 6.2, 6.6, and 12.1 according to the passed straw polls.

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:38 AM Jinsoo Choi <js.choi@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Edward, Tianyu,

 

It should be typo (sending behalf of Jinyoung). Thanks a lot for catching that and it will be updated in 838r3.

 

Best regards,

Jinsoo

 

From: Tianyu Wu [mailto:0000109ac93c8e11-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 9:34 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 31 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi Edward,

 

Thanks for the quick response. 

 

As suggested by TG chair, we can amend the SP and PHY group can re-run the amended SP in next PHY ad hoc CC.

 

Jinyoung, could you please double check this SP and update your contribution 838 with an amended version of SP?

 

Thanks.

Tianyu

 

 

On Jun 18, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Hi Tianyu,

 

Thanks for this!   As per my review in the draft meeting minutes and Jinyoung's contribution, it is still "-512".   While I agree that it makes more sense on "+512", may I know if you would help update 20/787 and 20/838 so that I can update SP79 accordingly?

Regards,
Edward

 

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 7:32 PM Tianyu Wu <tianyu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Edward, Jinyoung,

 

I think there is a typo in the following SP79 in 566r31(Originally from 838r2 by Jinyoung) as shown below.  

Straw poll #79

Do you support the below pilot indices for 26/52/106/242/484RU in 80/160/320MHz PPDU of 11be?

·       in a OFDMA/non-OFDMA with puncturing 80MHz EHT PPDU

o   [Pilot indices in 40MHz]-256, [Pilot indices in 40MHz]+256

·       in a OFDMA/non-OFDMA with puncturing 160MHz EHT PPDU

o   [Pilot indices in 80MHz]-512, [Pilot indices in 80MHz]-512           —>  o   [Pilot indices in 80MHz]-512, [Pilot indices in 80MHz] + 512

·       in a OFDMA/non-OFDMA with puncturing 320MHz EHT PPDU

o   [Pilot indices in 160MHz]-1024, [Pilot indices in 160MHz]+1024  [#SP79]

[20/0838r2 (Pilot subcarriers for new tone plan, Jinyoung Chun, LGE), SP#2, Y/N/A: 49/0/5]

Regards,

Tianyu

 

 

On Jun 17, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Hi,

 

Revision 31 is posted:

 

This revision changes the highlight of all passed green texts (based on the motions on June 11, 2020) to grey.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:56 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 30 is posted:

This revision:

[1]  fixes a typo in SP#65 and SP#76 as per the author’s request (http://www.ieee802.org/11/email/stds-802-11-tgbe/msg01230.html),

[2]  adds the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call on June 10, 2020, and the joint call on June 11, 2020, and updates the text in sections 3.4 and 6.2 according to the passed straw polls,

[3]  changes the highlight of Straw Poll #1 to Straw Poll #55 from yellow to green.

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:28 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello Insun,

 

Thanks for your review and comment!  I will incorporate your comments in revision 30.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:21 AM 장인선 <insun.jang@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Edward

 

Thanks very much for your efforts!

 

I noticed there is a text which was not updated and tagged with #SP65. We made live updates to the text during the call.

For #SP65, the revision number (r5 (or r6)) is correct, but the current text in SFD is in previous versions.

Could you please help to modify it as the SP#1 of 28r5 (or r6)?

 

In addition, for #SP76, the revision of doc 0028 should be r6 (due to live update as well)

Please help to update the revision number

 

Thanks

Best Regards

Insun

 

 

From: Edward Au [mailto:edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 11:47 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 29 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi,

 

Revision 29 is posted:

This revision adds the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC ad-hoc calls on June 8, 2020. Updated the text in sections 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.6.2, 6.2, and 6.4 according to the passed straw polls.

 

P.S.:  The latest version of the SFD (after incorporating all the passed motions on June 11) is tentatively released next week. 

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:49 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 28 is posted:

This revision:

[1] fixes a typo in SP#48 as per the author’s request (http://www.ieee802.org/11/email/stds-802-11-tgbe/msg01136.html),

[2] moves SP#44, SP#57, and SP#58 to section 2.4.3, and

[3] adds the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC ad-hoc calls on June 4, 2020. Updated the text in sections 2.2.2, 2.3.2.2, 2.3.2.3, 2.3.2.4, 2.3.3, 6.2, and 6.5 according to the passed straw polls.

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 4:08 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello Rui,

 

Thanks for your review.   I will make sure it is updated in revision 28.

 

Hello Alfred,

 

Please note the editorial fix of SP#48 that will be considered in the June 11th call.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:40 PM Rui Cao <rui.cao_2@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Edward,

 

Thank you for the update. I just noticed that there is some mismatch for Straw poll #48 in the SFD and meeting minutes. It is editorial, highlighted in yellow. Can you help to correct it in next update?

 

  • EHT defines frequency domain aggregation of aggregated PPDUs.
    • Aggregated PPDU consists of multiple sub-PPDUs.
    • The PPDU format combination limits to EHT and HE.
    • Other combinations are TBD.
    • For the PPDU using HE format, the PPDU BW TBD.
    • The number of PPDUs is TBD.
  • A-PPDU will be R2 feature. [#SP48]

 

Thank you,

Rui

 

From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:47 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXT] [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 27 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Caution: EXT Email

Hi,

 

Revision 27 is posted:

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the PHY ad-hoc call on June 1, 2020, and the MAC ad-hoc calls on June 1 and June 3, 2020;  and

[2]  updates the text in sections 2.3.2, 2.4.4, 6.2, 6.4, and 6.5 according to the passed straw polls.    

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 4:05 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 26 is posted:

This revision:

[1] rewords each of the SP texts highlighted in yellow from the question format to a statement format with track changes being enabled for review.

[2] updates the wordings of a few SP texts highlighted in green based on the comments received. 

Note that all changes in [1] and [2] are editorial.

 

To authors of the SP texts highlighted in green and yellow:

 

Please review and let me know via the email reflector by the end of June 5 if there is any comment or alternative suggestion on the text.  

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 7:28 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 25 is posted:

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call on May 27, 2020, and the joint call on May 28, 2020;

[2]  highlights all passed motions in the Specification Framework Document (19/1262r9) in grey as per the feedback received;

[3]  changes each green SP text from the question format to a statement format with track changes being enabled for review. Unique tag is added for each of these green SP texts.

 

To authors of the SP texts highlighted in green:

 

As per the discussion in a joint call a few weeks ago, I am changing each green SP text from the question format to a statement format.  Please review and let me know via the email reflector by the end of June 5 if there is any comment or alternative suggestion on the text.  

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:35 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 24 is posted:

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call on May 21, 2020;

[2]  updates the text in sections 3.2 and 6.5 according to the passed straw polls. 

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:54 PM Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Edward,

 

There is a typo in your link highlighted in yellow.

 

Below please find the corrected one.

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0566-23-00be-compendium-of-straw-polls-and-potential-changes-to-the-specification-framework-document.docx

 

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Edward Au [mailto:edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年5月24日 4:00
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 23 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi,

 

Revision 23 is posted:

 

This revision adds the straw poll results of the PHY ad-hoc call on May 21, 2020.   Please note that there is no change in text in Sections 1 to 12 in this revision.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 2:35 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 22 is posted:

 

This revision adds the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call on May 20, 2020.   Please note that there is no change in text in Sections 1 to 12 in this revision.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:19 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:59 PM Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Edward,

 

Thanks for the hard work. There is a typo in your link. Below please find the corrected one.

 

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0566-21-00be-compendium-of-straw-polls-and-potential-changes-to-the-specification-framework-document.docx

 

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Edward Au [mailto:edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年5月20日 9:54
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 21 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi,

 

Revision 21 is posted:

 

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC ad-hoc calls on May 18, 2020;

[2]  updates the text in sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.5, 3.2, 6.3, 6.7, 6.8, and 8.2 according to the passed straw polls. 

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:16 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 20, which incorporate the result of a straw poll of the joint call on May 14, 2020, is posted:

 

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 19 is posted:

 

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC ad-hoc calls on May 11, 2020;

[2]  updates the text in sections 2.4.1 and 6.2 according to the passed straw polls. 

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 6:51 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Revision 18 is posted:

 

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call on May 8, 2020;

[2]  updates the text in sections 6.2, and 6.6 according to the passed straw polls. 

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:51 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

 

Revision 17 is posted:

 

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC calls on May 7, 2020;

[2]  updates the text in sections 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 6.2, and 6.7 according to the passed straw polls. 

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:53 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

 

Revision 16 is posted:

 

This revision:

[1] updates the reference of Motion 71 to the contribution 19/1822r4.

[2] updates the reference of Motion 75 to the contribution 20/0117r1.

[3] replaces “GLK” with “GTK” in Section 1.

[4] updates the reference of Straw Poll #26 to the contribution 20/0024r3.

 

The first 3 changes are to make sure the approved materials in the Compendium of Motions are the same with those in the SFD (http://www.ieee802.org/11/email/stds-802-11-tgbe/msg00858.html).

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:33 PM Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thank you Edward!

Appreciate your efforts.


Regards,
Abhi

 

From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:23 AM
To: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 15 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Hi Abhi,

 

Thanks for your review.  Sure - I will replace 0024r2 with 0024r3 for straw poll #26 in both Section 6 and Section 13.    I've deleted the word "only" based on the meeting minutes but do not know from the minutes that you've posted revision 3 - sorry!  

Revision 16 will be posted in the next few days.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:02 PM Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Edward,

 

Thank you for your efforts.

 

Minor correction on pg 26:

For SP #26, the revision for doc 0024 should be r3.

We made live updates to the SP during the call (deleted only from the 1st bullet).

I have posted r3 with the updated SP text and the results.

 

Could you please help update the revision number when you get a chance?

 

Regards,
Abhi

 

From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 4:49 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 15 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Hello,

 

Revision 15 is posted:

 

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC calls on May 4, 2020;

[2] updates the text in sections 2.3.2.2, 2.5. and 6.4 according to the passed straw polls;

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 1:14 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

 

Revision 14 is posted:

 

This revision:

[1]  adds the straw poll results of the joint call on April 30, 2020;

[2] updates the text in sections 9.3 and 9.5 according to the passed straw polls;

[3] adds unique tags “Straw poll #[Number]” and “#SP[Number]# for each of the outstanding passed straw polls since revision 9. 

 

Regards,

Edward

 

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Edward,

 

Thanks for R13. That was fast!

 

Regarding the placement of SPs in sections, all the Multi-link Block Ack related SPs (Page 23, Line 30 onwards) could be in a separate section (e.g. Multi-link Block Ack). Currently, they are all under 6.3 TID-to-link mapping.

 

Regards,

Rojan

 

From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 12:08 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 13 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hello,

 

Revision 13 is posted:

 

This revision:

[1] adds the straw poll results on the request for candidate SFD texts;

[2] changes all highlight of all passed straw polls up to revision 8 from yellow to green.    

 

Regards,

Edward

 

 

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:55 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

The 3 straw polls in Section 2.3.1 are essentially slight variants of the same poll.  Remove the first two and keep the third one as the PHY ad-hoc chairs' comment.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

 

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:53 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

 

Revision 11 is posted:

The update includes:
[1] the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC ad-hoc call on April 27, 2020, and

[2] potential text changes in sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.6, and 8.2 according to the passed straw polls.  

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:29 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

 

Revision 10 is posted:

The update includes:
[1] the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call on April 26, 2020, and

[2] potential text changes in section 6,3 according to the passed straw polls.  

 

Regards,
Edward

 

 

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:13 PM Chen, Xiaogang C <xiaogang.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Sigurd. 

Let's further discuss that.

 

 

 

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note10+, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Sigurd Schelstraete <sschelstraete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 4/24/20 5:09 PM (GMT-08:00)

Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 9 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi Xiaogang,

This was discussed in the context of channelization, so it would apply to an AP that sets up a BSS with that BW (i.e 160+80). I see your point and we can discuss it further. If we only allow 240 MHz or 160+80 MHz as reduced BW transmissions within a 320 MHz BSS, the point may be moot.

 

Regards,

 

Sigurd

 

From: Chen, Xiaogang C <xiaogang.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:17 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 9 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

[External Email]: This email arrived from an external source - Please exercise caution when opening any attachments or clicking on links.

 

Hi Sigurd,

Can you clarify the definition of 160+80MHz BSS in the SP below? So far the 160+80 is defined as transmission.

I think we should wait till a 160+80 MHz BSS is defined. maybe we will not have this BSS configuration.

 

In 160+80 MHz BSS, should the 160 and 80 MHz be non-adjacent?

 

 

BRs,

Xiaogang.

 

From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 10:16 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 9 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hello Sharan,

 

Acknowledged.  The update will be appeared in revision 10 after I incorporate the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call today.

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 1:00 PM Sharan Naribole <n.sharan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello Edward,

 

Thanks for your effort! The correct version of DCN 226 is r5. I updated a word in this SP in r4 before running in yesterday’s call. I kindly request you to update document accordingly.

 

Do you support the addition of the following text to TGbe SFD?

·        A non-AP MLD may update its ability to perform simultaneous transmission and reception on a pair of setup links after multi-link setup.

o   This update for any pair of setup links can be announced by non-AP MLD on any enabled link.

NOTE – Specific signaling for update indication is TBD

NOTE - Limitations on dynamic updating is TBD

[20/0226r4 (MLO Constraint Indication and Operating Mode, Sharan Naribole, Samsung), SP#1, Y/N/A/No answer: 43/7/29/19]

 

Thanks,

Sharan

 

From: Edward Au [mailto:edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 9:13 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Revision 9 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hello Alfred and all,

 

Revision 9 is posted:

 

The update includes:
[1] the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC ad-hoc calls on April 23, 2020, and

[2] potential text changes in sections 2.3.3, 2.4.3, and 6.2 according to the passed straw polls.  

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:32 PM Alfred Asterjadhi <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Edward for posting the revised version of the compendium document.

 

Best Regards,

 

Alfred

 

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 6:39 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

 

Revision 8 is posted at:

 

The update includes:
[1] the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC ad-hoc calls on April 20, 2020, and

[2] the results of two PHY-related straw polls conducted in the January 2020 interim meeting (http://www.ieee802.org/11/email/stds-802-11-tgbe/msg00778.html)

[3]  potential text changes in sections 2.4.1 and 2.5 according to the passed straw polls.    

 

Regards,
Edward

 

 

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:02 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

 

Revision 7 is posted at:

 

This revision incorporates the straw polls conducted in the April 17th MAC ad-hoc call and the potential changes to Section 6.5 of the SFD.   Note that there is no SP conducted in the April 16th Joint call.

 

Have a good weekend,

Edward

 

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:26 AM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

This revision changes the highlight of the passed straw polls from grey to yellow, and add an unique tag "SP" to each of the passed straw polls, according to page 41 of the agenda slide deck https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0425-25-00be-2020-mar-may-tgbe-teleconference-agendas.docx. 

Regards,
Edward

 

 

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:30 PM Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Edward.

 

From: Edward Au [mailto:edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 4:59 PM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Revision 5 // Re: Compendium of straw polls and potential changes to SFD posted (20/0566r0)

 

Hi Wook Bong,

 

Thanks for your review on the draft meeting minutes and the document.

 

I've posted revision 5 that updates the SP#3 of 20/0020r3 and the potential change to section 2.4.3:

 

Regards,
Edward

 

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:21 PM Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 full preamble 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

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

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

--- Begin Message ---

Hi Ross,

 

Thanks very much for the changes.   I reviewed the table again and have one suggestion to remove the three combinations below that have no middle RU26 since we can now use their counterparts in the orange side so no point sending an inefficient RU combination with a hole when we have the exact same combination but with the hole  filled.

 

 

52

52

--

106

1

 

106

--

52

52

1

106

--

106

1

 

 

Let me know your thoughts,

 

Regards,

Ron

 

 

 

From: Yujian (Ross Yu) [mailto:ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 7:08 PM
To: Ron Porat; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SPs discussion regarding RU allocation (609r4)

 

Hi Ron,

 

I have added two entries back, 484-tone RU/996-tone RU contributes to zero user fields. Now it is exactly what you said. 11ax entries except removal of MU-MIMO support for 106-tone RU, and 23 entries for small MRU combinations.

 

Please double check. It is also in slide 18 of:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0609-05-00be-further-discussion-on-ru-allocation-subfield-in-eht-sig.pptx

 

 

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Ron Porat [mailto:000009a0da80e877-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年5月27日 5:47
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SPs discussion regarding RU allocation (609r4)

 

Hi Ross,

 

In your table below, is the only difference relative to 11ax the orange part + the omission of MU-MIMO over 106RU?

 

Thanks,

Ron

 

 

 

From: Wook Bong Lee [mailto:wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 1:59 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SPs discussion regarding RU allocation (609r4)

 

Hi Ross,

 

Thanks.

We are preparing a contribution on this topic.

It will be ready before next PHY meeting.

We can further discuss during next meeting.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

From: Yujian (Ross Yu) [mailto:ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 8:29 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: SPs discussion regarding RU allocation (609r4)

 

Hi all,

 

Since we have no PHY sessions this week, I’d like to continue the discussion regarding RU allocation subfields using email reflector. I have uploaded 609r4 with updated SPs:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0609-04-00be-further-discussion-on-ru-allocation-subfield-in-eht-sig.pptx

 

For SP2, I have made the changes according to some previous passed SPs regarding MU-MIMO support, remove TBD regarding number of entries. The large MRU part still needs some further discussion, so I don’t touch that part now. There are also some comments regarding compressed modes, I add a subbullet to say it is TBD. If you have concerns regarding specific entries, please let me know.

 

Table XX - RU Allocation subfield

order

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

Number
of entries

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

52

52

--

106

1

 

TBD

106

--

52

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

106

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

106

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

106

1

 

TBD

106

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

106

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

106

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

106

--

106

1

 

TBD

52

52

--

52

52

1

 

TBD

242-tone RU empty (with zero users)

1

 

TBD

106

26

106

1

 

TBD

242

8

 

TBD

484

8

 

TBD

996

8

 

TBD

2*996

8

 

TBD

52

52

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

52

52

--

106

1

 

TBD

106

--

52

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

106

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

106

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

106

1

 

TBD

106

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

106

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

106

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

106

--

106

1

 

TBD

52

52

--

52

52

1

 

TBD

242-tone RU empty (with zero users)

1

 

TBD

106

26

106

1

 

TBD

242

8

 

TBD

484

8

 

TBD

996

8

 

TBD

2*996

8

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

26

26

26

26

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

26

26

52

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

52

1

TBD

52

26

26

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

52

52

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

106

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

1

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

1

TBD

52

26

26

26

106

1

TBD

52

52

26

106

1

TBD

106

26

26

26

26

26

1

TBD

106

26

26

26

52

1

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

106

26

52

52

1

TBD

106

26

106

1

TBD

106

26

106

1

 

For SP3 and 4, it is for large single RU, try to follow 11ax, again compressed modes TBD

•     SP3: Do you agree that for RU242, RU484 or RU996, in the RU allocation table, 9 entries per RU size will be used to indicate: contributes 0~8 User fields to the User Specific field in the same EHT-SIG content channel as this RU Allocation subfield?

–    Compressed modes are TBD.

–    Yes/No/Abstain

 

•     SP4: Do you agree that for RU 2*996,  in the RU allocation table, 9 entries per RU size will be used to indicate: contributes 0~8 User fields to the User Specific field in the same EHT-SIG content channel as this RU Allocation subfield?

–    Compressed modes are TBD.

–    Yes/No/Abstain

 

SP2-4 are more straightforward thoughts. Let’s focus on SP2-4 first.

 

Please share your comments if you have any concerns or suggestions. Thanks.

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Wook Bong Lee [mailto:wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年5月14日 3:12
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SPs discussion regarding RU allocation

 

Thanks, Sameer.

I am also fine with the SP without the number of users.

 

Hope we can move forward with it.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Sameer Vermani [mailto:svverman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:00 PM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SPs discussion regarding RU allocation

 

Hi Wookbong,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

It’s Ross’s SP in the end, so I will leave it to him as to whether he wants to add the “number of users” part or not.  I just mentioned what I would be comfortable with at this point of time as far as the SP goes. Maybe it will make sense for the RU allocation sub-field to also tell the “number of users”, but that’s a detail I would like to discuss later as we need more time to think about it.

 

Regards,

Sameer

 

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:51 AM
To: Sameer Vermani <svverman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SPs discussion regarding RU allocation

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Hi Sameer,

 

Thanks for discussion.

Don’t get me wrong. I was asking whether that was his intention.

Anyway, I would like to know your detailed design so that we can see how it works.

 

I don’t know what is the benefit of splitting a number of users allocated to each RU from the RU Allocation subfield.

If your proposal is to make it simplify signaling, then I would like to repeat what I mentioned to Ron for self-contained design.

We already have a parsing algorithm for 11ax, at least that part it does not complicate the implementation, actually changing from that complicates the implementation.

As far as I know, Ross’s new design is to reduce the number of bits for the RU Allocation subfield.

Still, his design preserves the 11ax part.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

From: Sameer Vermani [mailto:svverman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 9:48 AM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SPs discussion regarding RU allocation

 

Hi Ross,

 

Thanks for the updated SP text.

 

Regarding SP1, I like your new proposed text. I actually would not like to add what Wook Bong is proposing below as there might be a possibility for some or all of the MU-MIMO modes to be signaled through a compressed mode. Hence, I think the “number of users allocated to each RU” maybe signaled in a different way for the MU-MIMO modes (including packets where MU-MIMO is being done on part of the PPDU BW).

 

Regarding SP2, I agree with Wook Bong that it maybe premature to discuss the table right now. I would prefer to defer that discussion and focus on higher level concepts for now.

 

Thanks,

Sameer

 

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 9:10 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SPs discussion regarding RU allocation

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Hi Ross,

 

Thanks for this.

 

I would like to focus on first SP.

You may want to add ‘except TB PPDU’ after ‘an EHT PPDU sent to multiple users’.

One more ting, in 11ax, the RU allocation table is indicating number of users allocated to each RU as in the text you captured.

You don’t want to capture that part?

also indicates information needed to compute the number of users allocated to each RU

 

Second SP, the table you provide is list of potential RU allocation which is trivial based on agreements so far.

So, maybe better to discuss more detail concept than the table.

Table itself can be developed based on high level concept agreement later.

We may have different row order than your table in below. It can be confusing.

 

One note, below rows can be TBD rows as well.

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

1

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

1

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Yujian (Ross Yu) [mailto:ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:19 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SPs discussion regarding RU allocation

 

Hi all,

 

Last meeting, the agreement is to prepare a better language regarding RU allocation SPs. Hence I have prepared a revised version with the updated SPs.

 

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0609-02-00be-further-discussion-on-ru-allocation-subfield-in-eht-sig.pptx

 

The first two SPs are also pasted here.  All your comments are welcome.

 

SP1: Do you agree to add the following to the 11be SFD:

l  An RU Allocation subfield that is present in the Common field of the EHT-SIG field of an EHT PPDU sent to multiple users, indicates RU assignment, including the size of the RU(s) and their placement in the frequency domain, to be used in the EHT modulated fields of the PPDU in the frequency domain.

o   Compressed modes are TBD.

 

Discussion:

Note in 11ax specs, we have the following description:

Each RU Allocation subfield in an HE-SIG-B content channel corresponding to a 20 MHz frequency segment indicates the RU assignment, including the size of the RU(s) and their placement in the frequency domain, to be used in the HE modulated fields of the HE MU PPDU in the frequency domain, also indicates information needed to compute the number of users allocated to each RU, where the subcarrier indices of the RU(s) meet the conditions in Table 27-25 (RUs associated with each RU Allocation subfield for each HESIGB content channel and PPDU bandwidth).

 

For SP1, I just try to follow 11ax without mentioning too much details.

 

Note We also have the following passed motion as a baseline:

l  An RU Allocation subfield is present in the Common field of the EHT-SIG field of an EHT PPDU sent to multiple users.

o   Compressed modes are TBD.

o   Contents of the RU Allocation subfield are TBD.

[Motion 57, [9] and [25]]

 

 

SP2: Do you agree that the mapping from the TBD-bit RU Allocation subfield to the RU assignment, contains the following entries:

l  The RUs highlighted in orange means combination.

Table XX RU Allocation subfield

order

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

Number
of entries

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

26

26

52

1

TBD

52

52

26

52

26

26

1

TBD

52

52

26

52

52

1

TBD

52

52

-

106

TBD

TBD

106

-

52

52

TBD

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

106

TBD

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

TBD

TBD

52

26

26

26

106

TBD

TBD

52

52

26

106

TBD

TBD

106

26

26

26

26

26

TBD

TBD

106

26

26

26

52

TBD

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

TBD

TBD

106

26

52

52

TBD

TBD

106

--

106

TBD

TBD

52

52

--

52

52

1

TBD

106

26

106

TBD

TBD

242

TBD

TBD

484

TBD

TBD

996

TBD

TBD

2*996

TBD

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

26

26

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

26

26

52

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

52

52

1

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

52

52

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

26

26

26

26

26

106

TBD

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

1

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

TBD

 

TBD

26

26

52

26

106

TBD

 

TBD

52

26

26

26

106

TBD

 

TBD

52

52

26

106

TBD

 

TBD

106

26

26

26

26

26

TBD

 

TBD

106

26

26

26

52

TBD

 

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

TBD

 

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

1

 

TBD

106

26

52

26

26

TBD

 

TBD

106

26

52

52

TBD

 

TBD

106

26

106

TBD

 

TBD

106

26

106

TBD

 

 

 

Discussion:

Now there is argument regarding MU-MIMO support for 106-tone RU, number of entries for MU-MIMO support (8 or 16), large MRU indication method. The entries in the table now try to avoid those controversial parts.

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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


--- End Message ---