| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Thanks Yanjun, looks good from my side.
Regards, Ron
From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Ron, Sigurd and all, I’ve tried to include your comments on page 8 in 21/0455r3, tagged with R3 in the comments. Please let me know if the proposed change look reasonable to you.
Hi Alfred, as there is some aspect related to PHY in this CR, is it possible to move 21/0455r3 from the MAC queue to the join queue?
Thank you, Yanjun
From: Ron Porat <000009a0da80e877-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Sigurd, Hi MAC folks,
Agreed, 16 bits is fine for full flexibility but as we know in the PHY the rel. 1 STA is limited to SU transmissions with just one hole as defined specifically in the spec so some restrictions are needed indeed here.
Thanks, Ron
From: Sigurd Schelstraete <sschelstraete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Ron, About: 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).
I see 455r2 uses a 16-bit bitmap to indicate the (static) puncturing pattern. I don’t believe anyone really expects to use the full flexibility of this 16 bit indication, but we should probably be more explicit about the restrictions you mention when it comes to static puncturing.
Regards,
Sigurd
From: Ron Porat <000009a0da80e877-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This email was sent from outside of MaxLinear.
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:
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:"Calibri&q 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