Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

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

Hi Jianhan,

That is only if we don’t allow non-AP STA to transmit higher than MCS 7 power level.

If that is what members wants, then we need to make a rule like

E.g. when allocates non-contiguous MRU, AP STA shall assume an non-AP STA uses transmit power less than the maximum power of EHT-MCS 7.

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

From: Jianhan Liu [mailto:Jianhan.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:44 PM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

-29 to -38 dB is always more tighter than -20 to -25dBr (puncture mask), right?

Then puncture mask becomes less useful then if puncture cases cannot be always identified.

Thanks,

Jianhan

From: Wook Bong Lee [mailto:wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:25 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi Jianhan and Ron,

Punctured mask: -20 to -25dBr

Max(EVM – 2,-38): -15 to -38 dB depending on modulation level

If we only allow power level less than or equal to the maximum power of EHT-MCS 7, then

Max(EVM – 2,-38): -29 to -38 dB.

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

From: Jianhan Liu [mailto:Jianhan.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:02 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi All,

For epsilon-2 in option 3, in which cases that the unused tone mask is tighter than punctured mask?

Thanks,

Jianhan

From: Ron Porat [mailto:000009a0da80e877-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:42 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi Wook bong, Xiaogang,

For the regular unused tone mask we could go with epsilon-2 in option 3 to make it tighter and that should be sufficient to expand the 11ax style requirement to non-contiguous MRU.

If on top of that we want to add some new requirement based on section 36.3.19.1.2 we need to be a bit more careful and discuss it separately. Since the STA is not in control (unlike SU) and doesn’t know if and where there is a disallowed subchannel we may want to limit it to only a subchannel conveyed in the beacon (static puncturing) and further decouple the requirement from the M-RU size (e.g. case 3 therein).

Thanks,

Ron

From: Chen, Xiaogang C <xiaogang.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Thanks Wook Bong to initiate this.

One thing to consider is regulatory may not differentiate puncture and unallocated. They only differentiate adjacent and non-adjacent subchannel.

Given that, regarding the unused EVM of the frequency portion of the “hole”, fully rely on e or e-2 may violate the regulatory requirement (for low MCS) if the interpretation of the unused “hole” is just “non-adjacent”. So IMO puncture mask is safer for the “hole”.

BRs,

Xiaogang.

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 4:47 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi all,

Thanks for discussion today.

Please give your opinion on

11-21/639r1, Proposed Resolution of Remaining TBDs in 36.3.19.4.4 and 36.3.20.3, Wook Bong Lee (Samsung)

Please focus on change #3. PHY group accepted change #1, 2 and 4 today.

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

From: Wook Bong Lee
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 8:36 AM
To: 'asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx' <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Sigurd Schelstraete <sschelstraete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tianyu Wu <tianyu@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Announcement: Motions for TGbe on Wednesday 14th of April 2021

Hi Alfred, Sigurd and Tianyu,

Can you please add following in the PHY queue?

11-21/639, Proposed Resolution of Remaining TBDs in 36.3.19.4.4 and 36.3.20.3, Wook Bong Lee (Samsung)

I will upload today or next Monday morning.

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

From: Alfred Asterjadhi [mailto:asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 7:06 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Announcement: Motions for TGbe on Wednesday 14th of April 2021

Hello all,

This is an advanced notification that TGbe will run motions during the Joint teleconference scheduled on April 14th 2021.

Please refer to the document linked below for a preliminary list of all the motions (starting from slide 33) that will be run during the conference call:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-1982-13-00be-tgbe-motions-list-for-teleconferences-part-2.pptx

Please review the documents included in Motions 166-172, and reply to this e-mail if you would like to identify any of these documents or any particular CID as items that need further discussion.

The deadline for sending these e-mails is April 13th 2021 @10:00am ET.

A list of these requested items will be queued for discussion and run as a separate motion (Motions >172) during the same Joint conference call.
Contributions that have not received a request for further discussions will be part of their respective cumulative motion and will be run at the same Joint conference call.
For more information please refer to the subclause "Guideline-Building Consensus and Populating the TGbe SFD" in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0984-04-00be-tgbe-teleconference-guidelines.docx.

If you have any comments and/or questions please let me know.
Best Regards,
Alfred

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