Hi Wookbong, >> In 240MHz 2x996+484, 2x996 shall be contiguous or it can be discontinuous? In OFDMA we support discontinuous for 2x996+484 and plan to include all 6 options in the RU table. 2x996 (any) is not supported in OFDMA (ecept 160MHz RU) >> Likewise, in 320MHz 3x996+484, 3x997 shall be contiguous or it can be discontinuous? In OFDMA we support all those options , 8 for the first combo and 4 for the second (2 of which are essentially 240). Thanks, Ron From: Wook Bong Lee [mailto:wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 4:50 PM
To: Yujian (Ross Yu); Ron Porat; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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. 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 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) [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. 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 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 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 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] This revision changes the highlight of all passed green texts (based on the motions on June 11, 2020) to grey. [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. Thanks for your review and comment! I will incorporate your comments in revision 30. 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) 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, [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. Thanks for your review. I will make sure it is updated in revision 28. Please note the editorial fix of SP#48 that will be considered in the June 11th call. 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 Caution: EXT Email [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. [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. [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. [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. 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) 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 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 All - the correct URL of this latest revision is: 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) [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. Revision 20, which incorporate the result of a straw poll of the joint call on May 14, 2020, is posted: [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. [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. [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. [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). Thank you Edward! Appreciate your efforts.
Regards,
Abhi
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. 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. 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 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. [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; [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. 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) [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. 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. 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. 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. Let's further discuss that. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note10+, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message -------- 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 [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) Acknowledged. The update will be appeared in revision 10 after I incorporate the straw poll results of the MAC ad-hoc call today. 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) 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. Thanks Edward for posting the revised version of the compendium document. The update includes:
[1] the straw poll results of the PHY and MAC ad-hoc calls on April 20, 2020, and [3] potential text changes in sections 2.4.1 and 2.5 according to the passed straw polls. 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. 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) 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: Thanks Tianyu. Hi Wook Bong, Nice catch, I will update the minutes. 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? • 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. C: Comment to remove “full”. STA only need its own information not the full information of all STAs. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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):
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
|