| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Jianhan,For the MRU indices, I meant e.g., "484+242 tone MRU1", etc. in the figures. Remember that all RU26, RU52, RU106, RU242, RU484, RU996, etc., have their RU indices in a table of one BW mode. It would be easier to refer to a specific MRU when it has an index.Thanks,AliceQualcommOn Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 7:25 PM Jianhan Liu <jianhanliu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Alice,Thanks for your comments. Please see my responses inline.(1) This is in page 2. In description of small-size MRUs, "The 26+52 tone MRU is obtained by combining a 26-tone RU and a 52-tone RU that both fall within a 20MHz channel boundary." is not strict. Prefer to say that they are adjacent 26-tone RU and 52-tone RU. Same comment for definition of the 26+106 tone MRU.[jianhan]: I think we can add the word "adjacent". Given we have the figure clearly show the allowed 52+26 and 106+26 MRU and not all adjacent MRU are allowed, there is little confusion.
(2) In the small-size MRUs subclause, shall we use MRU indices for these small-size MRUs? We have RU indices for all RUs in the OFDMA tone plan. We also have MRU indices for large-size MRUs.[Jianhan]: what do you mean MRU indices? Can you be more specific?
(3) Need to highlight 3 additional places related to non-contiguous BW modes (e.g., 80+80, 160+160) as TBD. In page 6, last sentence before Figure 34-X9, and 2nd line in the paragraph after Figure 34-9X; in page 9, 2nd line in the paragraph after Figure 34-X14.[Jianhan]: will do.
(4) In the large MRUs subclause, is there a reason why we define the MRUs for non-OFDMA, followed by the MRUs for OFDMA? Majority of MRUs are in both non-OFDMA and OFDMA. This results in a lot of redundancy.[Jianhan]: I think there are still differences between allowed MRUs in OFDMA and non-OFDMA. I prefer to make them separately to be clear. These are all reflected in the motions. We can write it in a more concise way in the next round maybe.Thanks,jianhanOn Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM Alice Jialing Li <jialing.li.phd2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Jianhan,I reviewed this 1447r1. I have following 4 comments:
(1) This is in page 2. In description of small-size MRUs, "The 26+52 tone MRU is obtained by combining a 26-tone RU and a 52-tone RU that both fall within a 20MHz channel boundary." is not strict. Prefer to say that they are adjacent 26-tone RU and 52-tone RU. Same comment for definition of the 26+106 tone MRU.
(2) In the small-size MRUs subclause, shall we use MRU indices for these small-size MRUs? We have RU indices for all RUs in the OFDMA tone plan. We also have MRU indices for large-size MRUs.
(3) Need to highlight 3 additional places related to non-contiguous BW modes (e.g., 80+80, 160+160) as TBD. In page 6, last sentence before Figure 34-X9, and 2nd line in the paragraph after Figure 34-9X; in page 9, 2nd line in the paragraph after Figure 34-X14.
(4) In the large MRUs subclause, is there a reason why we define the MRUs for non-OFDMA, followed by the MRUs for OFDMA? Majority of MRUs are in both non-OFDMA and OFDMA. This results in a lot of redundancy.Regards,AliceQualcommOn Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:51 AM Jianhan Liu <jianhanliu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Lin,Thanks, I updated the document r1 according to your comments.Best Regards,JianhanOn Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:53 PM Lin Yang <linyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Jianhan,
Thanks for drafting this section. I have some comments:
- On P2, you marked pilot subcarriers for RU26+52 and RU26+106 as TBD. Actually there is a passed motion 115 addressing this
802.11be supports that pilot subcarriers for small/large RU combinations includes the pilot subcarriers of each RU.
[Motion 115, #SP80, [10] and [74]]
- In the text, for those 80+80 and 160+160, they may need to be highlighted in yellow to be consistent with other PDTs
- 11be should be referring to Section 34.xxx or something, but should not be 27.xxx
Thanks,
Lin
From: Jianhan Liu <jianhanliu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 6:38 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXT] [STDS-802-11-TGBE] draft text for "PDT-Resource unit-Interleaving for RUs and aggregated RUs"
Dear all,
The draft text for "PDT-Resource unit-Interleaving for RUs and aggregated RUs" has been uploaded to the server. You can access it with the following link.
Your comments are welcome.
Thanks,
Jianhan
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