Hello Ross and Edward,
Your comments are all accepted and implemented in attached.
- MRU related editorial comments
- “Not valid” instead of “Reserved” or “Not defined”
Regards,
Yujin
From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:44 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT review on PHY Parameters for EHT-MCSs
Hello Yujin,
If we review the MCS tables in clauses 21 and 23, "Not valid" is used. For the sake of consistency, you may consider using "Not valid" in your submission too.
If the ad-hoc and/or TG believes there is a better alternative than "Not valid", we can also consider and bring this editorial topic to the REVme once it is formed.
Thanks and Regards,
Edward
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:42 AM Yujin Noh <yujin.noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ross
Thank you for the comments.
Please see my response in red below
When the discussion is done, I will share the updated version.
Regards,
Yujin
From: Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 4:49 PM
To: Yujin Noh <yujin.noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: PDT review on PHY Parameters for EHT-MCSs
Hi Yujin,
Thanks for preparing the PDTs.
For some MRUs where DCM is not supported. You may use Not valid instead of Reserved, similar as before:
è It is a very good point because I thought we might need the discussion whether it should be “Not Valid” or “Reserved”. In 11ac, Not valid is shown because Ndbps is not a integer. But here in 11be, things seem different because we have just decided not to support. So in that way, Reserved might be a good option. Any thoughts? It makes sense to use “Not valid” in one way as you mentioned.
One more suggestions, could you add sub-titles for different RU sizes, similar as 11ax. Since there are many tables, it would be friendly for reads to find the exact table:
è Then it would have only one table for each subclause. Since the comment is still valid, I will update it.
regards
于健 Ross Jian Yu
Huawei Technologies
发件人: Yujin Noh [mailto:yujin.noh@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2021年1月27日 6:15
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT review on PHY Parameters for EHT-MCSs
Dear all,
Please find the draft of PDT TBD on PHY Parameters for EHT-MCSs.
Remaining TBDs in this subclause would be covered by DUP mode PDT.
If you have any comments, please let me know.
Regards,
Yujin
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
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