| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Wook bong,
In regards to #1 let’s hear on the call what people prefer and go with that.
In regards to #2 the AP may do any puncturing it wants based on the spec but what we are defining is what the non-AP STA will be required to meet when transmitting a TB PPDU.
Thanks, Ron
From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Regarding number 1, I think epsilon – 2 seems too tight. Original proposal was epsilon + 1, allowing leakage from both side. As others commented, we can live with epsilon, i.e. EVM. In this case, the non-contiguous one becomes same as larger block requirement, e.g. 2x996+484 requirement is same as 3x996.
Regarding number 2, I am fine with static one. In this case, we don’t allow AP to perform dynamic puncturing for TB PPDU?
Best regards, Wook Bong Lee
From: Ron Porat [mailto:ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Wook bong,
That rule is an unnecessary constraint/requirement. My thinking based on the discussion is that we need a two-fold solution which seems natural based on 11ax design and puncturing mask we adopted in 11be:
1. Use option 3 for unused tone error EVM at a fixed level of max(epsilon-2,-38) in the hole of a non-contiguous MRU.
2. In addition to #1 – non-AP STA needs to meet the punctured mask we already defined in 36.3.19.1.2 for any RU/MRU (this one has nothing to do with non-contiguous MRU) based on static puncturing, meaning applied only for the subband signaled in the beacon (that’s the only subband the STA knows is punctured)
I assume only one punctured subband will be signaled in the beacon and will be limited to the non-ofdma puncturing patterns we defined in the spec (other cases STA doesn’t implement).
Thanks, Ron
From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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]
-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]
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]
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]
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>
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>
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
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]
Hello all,
The deadline for sending these e-mails is April 13th 2021 @10:00am ET.
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 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 |
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature