Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on DCN680r1 Operating Bandwidth Indica

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

Hi Guogang,

Thanks for bringing up this issue to the table.

Actually I also have a similar contribution (684r0) that was presented last time and my own SP is in line with your SPs.

However, based on the off-line discussion, quite many members want me to hold off my own SP because it depends on PHY’s decision on allowed PPDU bandwidth.

And, even though some SPs in PHY (e.g., SP1 of 1100r0) does not get enough support to not allow 80+80MHz and/or 160+160MHz PPDU, it looks there’s no clear decision made on this issue in PHY side yet.

Under this situation, I think we better not be in a hurry in deciding the Channel Width and CCFS field definition until the PHY discussion on this topic is cleared.

How do you think?

Thanks,

Young Hoon

From: huangguogang <huangguogang1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 1:18 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on DCN680r1 Operating Bandwidth Indication for EHT BSS

Hi all,

I have upload a new version of DCN680. I prepare to run the following two straw polls in the next week. If you have any concern or suggestion, please let me know.

SP2. Do you support to define EHT Operation element with two CCFS subfields (EHT_CCFS0/EHT_CCFS1) to indicate channel configuration for EHT BSS?

SP 3. Do you support to use 3 bits of Channel Width field in EHT operation element to indicate the channel width for EHT BSS as following

0: 20
1: 40
2: 80
3: 160/80+80
4: 320/160+160
5~7: reserved

Regards

Guogang Huang

Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.

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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on DCN680r1 Operating Bandwidth Indication for EHT BSS