Hello, Yanjun,
As I explained in another email to Yongho, we can keep INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS as it is in Table 27-1 and we can directly refer to it in Table 34-1. It's not necessary to change the definition of INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS in Table 34-1 or in Table 27-1.
But I'd suggest to update the text in your proposed sub-clause 33.x.x.2 (INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS) to make it similar to sub-clause 26.11.7 (INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS and RU_ALLOCATION). And as Yongho pointed out, you may want to specify the INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS is a 16-bit bitmap to support 320 MHz bandwidth. And in future, e.g. D0.1 comment process, we may add a table in section 34 corresponding to Table 27-4 as in section 27 to explain the CH_BANDWIDTH and INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS.
Best Regards,
Bo
Good point, Bo.
We could add the following to the PDT. Another option is to handle it within your PHY PDT for a cohesive design. Please let me know which way works better for you.
34.x.2 TXVECTOR and RXVECTOR
Table 34-1 TXVEROR and RXVECTOR Parameters
Parameter | Condition | Value | TXVECTOR | RXVECTOR |
INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS | FORMAT is NON_HT and NON_HT_MODULATION is equal to NON_HT_DUP_ OFDM | TBD |
Thank you,
Yanjun
From: sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx <sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 6:34 PM
To: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yongho.seok@xxxxxxxxx; Xiaofei.Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:PDT-MAC-TXOP-Preamble-Puncturing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization.
Hello, Yanjun,
Thanks for initiaing the discussion.
For your reference, the current 11ax TXVECTOR parameter INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS is present and indicates the 20 MHz subchannels that are punctured when "FORMAT
is NON_HT and NON_HT_MODULATION is NON_HT_DUP_OFDM".
In 11be, Table 34-1 will contain parameter INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS as well to extend support for FORMAT=EHT_MU. But for NON_HT case, the use of this parameter may refer to the definition as
in 11ax Table 27-1. My question is whether current definition for INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS in Table 27-1 supports the description in your proposal?
Best Regards,
Bo
Original Mail
Sender: YanjunSun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Yongho Seok <yongho.seok@xxxxxxxxx>;Xiaofei.Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<Xiaofei.Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;sun bo10013985;
Date: 2020/09/24 09:02
Subject: RE: PDT-MAC-TXOP-Preamble-Puncturing
Hi All,
Thank you for your inputs today. Please see the revised draft at:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-1408-01-00be-pdt-mac-txop-preamble-puncturing.docx
Yongho, Bo, the draft has been revised to refer to theINACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS defined in 1403. Thanks again for your inputs.
Please let me know if you have any questions/comments.
Thank you,
Yanjun
From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:29 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-MAC-TXOP-Preamble-Puncturing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization.
Hi all,
If you have any comments on the following clause for TXOP with preamble puncturing, please let me know.
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-1408-00-00be-pdt-mac-txop-preamble-puncturing.docx
Thanks for the folks who has provided early feedbacks.
Thank you,
Yanjun
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