Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

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

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Please see my answers inline.

BR,

Oded

From: Ron Porat [mailto:000009a0da80e877-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:15 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Hi Oded,

A few more comments:

General: preferable to move all description of mandatory AP/STA support to "EHT PHY introduction" section
Sub-clause 34.3.10.10.1:
1. Suggest following changes:
  1. Include more precise definition, e.g., Preamble puncturing refers to transmission of PPDU in which no signal is present in one or more 20MHz subbands within the transmission BW.
    [OR] – OK, text added.
  2. Not all combinations of 20M subbands are allowed to be punctured. Explicitly mention allowed puncturing patterns for OFDMA transmissions and for non-OFDMA transmissions,
    [OR] – Agree, however I think that mentioning the allowed preamble puncturing patterns should be given in 34.3.10.10.3 below. For non-OFDMA transmission, since practically it is MRU definition, a reference to the MRU section is given in 34.3.10.10.2.
2. "The unavailability of any part of the bandwidth may be due to various reasons.." is informative. Would suggest to either remove informative text, or add as a "Note".
  [OR] Already done based on a comment by Youhan Kim.
Sub-clause 34.3.10.10.2:
1. "An EHT-STA shall support preamble puncturing for SU.." Motion in SFD pertains to 11be spec (i.e., "11be amendment shall support"), not mandatory feature of EHT AP/STA. Only certain multi-RU cmbinations are mandated in non-OFDMA for EHT AP/STA. Suggest removing this sentence.
  [OR] OK, Text has been modified
Sub-clause 34.3.10.10.3:
1. "An EHT-STA shall support .. " is wrong, Motion in SFD pertains to 11be spec (i.e., "11be amendment shall support"), not mandatory feature of EHT AP/STA. Also, preamble puncturing for MU is not mandatory. Lastly, this feature cannot be supported by non-AP STA. Suggest removing this sentence.
  [OR] OK, Text has been modified

Thanks,

Ron

From: 김상현 [mailto:shk0787@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2020 10:47 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Dear Oded,

Thank you so much.

Best Regard,

Sanghyun Kim

Sanghyun Kim, Ph.D
WILUS Inc.
5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu,
Seongnam-si Gyeonggi-do 13595, Korea
T +82 31 712 0523
www.wilusgroup.com

-----Original Message-----
From: "Oded Redlich (TRC)"<oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Cc:
Sent: 2020-09-03 (목) 02:15:21 (GMT+09:00)
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Hi Sanghyun Kim,

I understand your intention and personally I don’t have a problem with your suggestion to change the wording. Note however that this text is given in the “general” sub-clause as an introduction/explanation. If you want to turn it to a requirement then maybe you should run a SP on that first.

Anyway, I changed the text as you suggested.

BR,

Oded

From: 김상현 [mailto:shk0787@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 6:38 PM
To: Oded Redlich (TRC) <oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Dear Oded,

Thank you for the response.

I am not sure of the scenario an EHT STA punctures available channels yet.

But, I think we need to consider text that can cover as many cases as possible, because we don't know all the scenarios yet.

Simple scenarios I can imagine are below.

-An EHT STA may try to keep some channels IDLE(available) for P2P transmission or coordinated APs.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Best Regard,

Sanghyun Kim, Ph.D

WILUS Inc.
5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu,
Seongnam-si Gyeonggi-do 13595, Korea
T +82 31 712 0523
www.wilusgroup.com

-----Original Message-----
From: "Oded Redlich (TRC)"<oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "김상현"<shk0787@xxxxxxxxx>; "STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"<STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Cc:
Sent: 2020-09-02 (수) 23:46:16 (GMT+09:00)
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Hi Sanghyun Kim,

Thanks for your comments.

I have updated the text in accordance with your 1^st and 3^rd comments.

Regarding your 2^nd suggestion to replace “available” with “occupied by the PPDU”, if I understand you correctly, your intention is to use a wider definition. However I don’t understand in which practical scenario will a transmitter choose not to use an available secondary channel within an at least 80MHz BW transmission.

Could you elaborate on that?

BR,

Oded

From: 김상현 [mailto:shk0787@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Oded Redlich (TRC) <oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Dear Oded,

Thanks for preparing the text.

Please find attached comments.

Best Regards

Sanghyun Kim

Sanghyun Kim, Ph.D
WILUS Inc.
5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu,
Seongnam-si Gyeonggi-do 13595, Korea
T +82 31 712 0523
www.wilusgroup.com

-----Original Message-----
From: "Oded Redlich (TRC)"<oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Cc:
Sent: 2020-08-31 (월) 23:08:09 (GMT+09:00)
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Hi Youhan

Thanks for your comment and corrections. I updated the text according to most of them, please see attached.

Regarding your high level comment about the name “preamble puncture”:

I partially agree with your observation. I think however that the term “preamble puncture” was chosen in 802.11ax because the puncturing indication relates only to P80 where pre-HE processing in the receiver is required for BW of 80MHz & 160MHz. It then enables proper processing of the HE-SIG-B field on the non-punctured subchannels.

There is no argument that any 20MHz subchannel in S80 may also be unavailable, so the HE preamble is punctured in these subchannels as well but it is not necessarily processed/decoded. Therefore, this is not related to “preamble puncture”.

In EHT the situation is similar, although not identical:

In OFDMA, the preamble puncture indication field in U-SIG in an EHT MU PPDU indicates the preamble puncturing pattern of only the 80MHz where the U-SIG is being sent. So the receiver will have the puncturing indication for only the 80MHz segment where it processes the pre-EHT, which is similar to HE.

In non-OFDMA with puncturing, the U-SIG in each 80 MHz may carry puncturing channel info for all 80 MHz segments, so we should distinguish between two cases:

1. If the 80MHz segment where the STA processes the pre-EHT is punctured, then it is again similar to HE.

2. In the case where the punctured subchannel is outside the aforementioned 80MHz segment, I agree that the more accurate term to be used is e.g. “puncture” or “channel puncture” rather than “preamble puncture”.

So in my opinion the term “preamble puncture” is still applicable.

In any case, I think it is too early to determine whether the term “preamble puncture” should be revised and in any case I think it is better to have the group decide on that.

Best Regard,

Oded

From: Youhan Kim [mailto:youhank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 1:19 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Hi, Oded,

Thanks for the nice work. Please find my suggested edits in the attached document.

One high level comment is on the name “preamble puncturing”.

In 11ax, we called it ‘preamble’ puncturing because 11ax puncturing was defined only for DL OFDMA. And for HE modulated fields in DL OFDMA, ‘puncturing’ is naturally done by not allocating certain RUs. Hence, what had to be ‘defined’ was to puncture the preamble (more specifically, the pre-HE modulated fields).

In 11be, however, we are extending the puncturing to non-OFDMA cases, in which case the name ‘preamble’ puncturing does not seem appropriate as even the EHT modulate fields need to be punctured as well.

Regards,

Youhan

From: Oded Redlich (TRC) <oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 1:53 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Hi Yujin,

Thanks for the comment.

Will be updated in the next revision.

BR,

Oded

From: Yujin Noh [mailto:yujin.noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 11:28 PM
To: Oded Redlich (TRC) <oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Hi Oded,

Thank you for the draft.

Please find minor editorial updates to be consistent with other subclauses.

Regards,

Yujin

From: Oded Redlich (TRC) <oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 12:35 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Hello Preamble Puncture TTTs and all,

I have uploaded the initial draft for the preamble-puncture sub-clause to the server. The document reference number is 1319.

Your comments are welcomed.

BR,

Oded

From: Oded Redlich (TRC) [mailto:oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:21 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Dear TTTs of preamble puncture,

This is a kind reminder to volunteer to write the text of the below suggested sub-clauses.

BR,

Oded

From: Oded Redlich (TRC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:52 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-PHY-Preamble Puncture

Dear preamble puncture TTTs,

Preamble puncture text is suggested to be inserted in a new sub-section 34.3.10.10 “Preamble Puncture”.

Also new text in section 9.4.2.xxx (“EHT Capabilities Element”) will probably be added to define the sub-field “EHT PHY Capabilities Information field”. We need to define the preamble puncture Rx capabilities within this sub-field (similar to how it is defined in 9.4.2.247 in 11axD6.0)

Thus I suggest the following list of sub clauses to be added:

Under 34.3.10.10 – Preamble Puncture

34.3.10.10.1 – General
34.3.10.10.2 – Preamble Puncture for PPDUs transmitted to a single user
34.3.10.10.3 – Preamble Puncture for PPDUs transmitted to multiple users

Under 9.4.2.xxx.yyy – EHT PHY Capabilities Information field

Punctured Preamble Rx

Please feel free to volunteer to write a specific section

In addition, please let me know if you have any comments or if I have missed something

BR,

Oded Redlich

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

Image removed by sender.

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