Due to popular demand, 1395r12, which had been SP approved within the MAC adhoc was brought into the PHY adhoc meeting of SEP 28 for review and that group had a slightly different feeling about how to determine the NSTR nature of a pair of links as compared to what was in 33.x.y.3 in r12.
As a result of that review, 1395r14 was generated, passed an SP in the PHY adhoc and is on the server.
This email is being sent to ensure that members who attend the WED SEP 30 TGbe joint call expecting to vote on the originally passed 1395r12 will see that there will be two documents to vote on because one passed in MAC and the other in PHY.
In any case, I support 1395r14 and I urge the people who were not in the PHY adhoc to examine r14 and/or compare it to r12. Here is a summary:
Within r14, I believe that the sentiment of the modified first paragraph (which is now two paragraphs) of 33.x.y.3 is fundamentally not different from what was in r12, but it does look different.
Basically, r12 and r14 both say that a pair of links is NSTR if transmission on one link prevents reception on the other link.
r12 was much more specific as to the TX conditions and only specified the minimum receiver sensitivity requirement for the RX side, i.e. one specific subclause of the PHY
r14 is more general, in that it says that the RX link must be able to meet all receiver requirements of the phy clause 34 whenever there is a transmission on the other link in order for the link pair to be STR
And NSTR, by explicit extension, is when a link pair fails to meet the STR definition
The discussion from the PHY group suggested that the r14 version provides more explicit allowance for a STA to modify its TX parameters to achieve the RX requirements and declare a link as STR
see:
Matthew Fischer
Nice Guy
Broadcom Inc.
+1 408 543 3370 office
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