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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT-MAC-TXOP-Preamble-Puncturing

Sounds good. Thank you, Bo.

 

 

Thank you,

Yanjun

 

From: sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx <sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 5:07 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, 

 

I agree to mark it as TBD (to support 320 MHz) in sub-clause 33.x.x.2 (INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS) as in your proposal. My point is we don't need to change the definition of INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS for this case in Table 34-1 or Table 27-1 for now, since there's no discussion for new mechanism yet. 

 

Best Regards,

Bo

 

Original Mail

Sender: YanjunSun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: sun bo10013985;

Date: 2020/09/25 07:57

Subject: RE: Re:PDT-MAC-TXOP-Preamble-Puncturing

Hi Bo,

 

Thank you for the additional inputs.

 

For 320MHz, there are multiple possible ways to indicate punctured subchannel. I’m in general aligned with your suggestion of using a 16 bit map instead of the existing 8 bit map, but I’m concerned to include that at the moment as there is no related motion passed yet. So I’m leaning toward leaving it as TBD, same as what you indicated for EHT format in 1043r4. Please let me know if you have any alternative suggestion.

 

Thank you,

Yanjun

 

From: sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx <sun.bo1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 4:29 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, 

 

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

 

Original Mail

Sender: YanjunSun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: sun bo10013985;

Date: 2020/09/25 04:20

Subject: RE: Re:PDT-MAC-TXOP-Preamble-Puncturing

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_SUBCHANNELSdefined 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

 

 

 

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