Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi, Youhan Thank you for the comment. I feel that this depends on the definition of operating class, and where it is used. To me, I think 320-1 and 320-2 is only difference in location/center frequency, and hence, giving
them different operating class seems not necessary. In the scenario where operating class will be used, channel numbering will also be provided, I believe that there is no ambiguity if we put 320-1 and 320-2 in a same class.
To my understanding, the purpose of mentioning 320-1 and 320-2 is to remove ambiguity in BW location for a PPDU, and this differentiation is needed only in PHY preamble. So may be your CR for 3175 could be
Set to 4 for 320 MHz EHT PPDU occupying one of the channels defined in the Operating class 137 with center frequency 31, 95, 159. Sorry for the confusion from my current CR. If you agree, I will update the CR for 1956 from accept to be reject.
Thank you and best, Ruchen From: Youhan Kim [mailto:youhank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Thanks, Ruchen and Ross. 320-1 and 320-2 are distinguished by their center frequency. And Table E-4 is where we define channels, including their center frequency. Hence, I think Table E-4 is the appropriate place to distinguish 320-1 and 320-2. Please see CID
3175.
Thanks. Youhan From: Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. Hi Ruchen, Thanks for the response. We can discuss during your presentation. If needed, we can describe it in the first place where it shows up, e.g., U-SIG subclause. regards 于健 Ross Jian Yu Huawei Technologies 发件人:
Ruchen Duan [mailto:r.duan@xxxxxxxxxxx] Hi, Ross Thank you for the comment. I originally have the same thoughts, and that is how I compose Annex E for Draft 0.3. And I realize that the Operating class should not be abused, so yes, it may not be proper to split. Then I feel that we shall find better place to define 320-1 and 320-2 other than Annex E, because we never define any BW (20/40/80/160 and 80+80) in Annex E. I think we can discuss during the PHY meeting to find
a proper location for this definition. Best, Ruchen From: Yujian (Ross Yu) [mailto:ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Ruchen, Can you clarify why we need two different operating class in Annex E for 320-1 and 320-2?
I think the comment just wants to have some description of what is 320-1 and what is 320-2. You can add some description, which is similar as in SFD. In addition to four entries for 20/40/80/160MHz, there exists two entries in U-SIG BW field for 320 MHz:
[Motion 135, #SP237, [48] and [80]] regards 于健 Ross Jian Yu Huawei Technologies 发件人:
Ruchen Duan [mailto:r.duan@xxxxxxxxxxx] Hi, Alfred, Sigurd and Tianyu Please add the following document to the PHY queue. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0424-00-00be-cr-for-36-3-22-and-annex-e.doc
Thank you and best, Ruchen 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 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 |