Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] CR on Trigger frame: Common Info field format

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

Hi Ensung, Greg, Arik and all,

Thank you for reviewing the CR and sharing your thoughts/suggestions. I’m aggregating the email threads and responses together as they’re related.

Please see my response to your individual question/comments inline.

As the next step, I agree with the suggestions from Arik and Greg that the reserved bits B56-B62 in the EHT Common User Info field needs to be renamed. Please see the proposed changes on pages 14 and 20 tagged with “R0” in the attached and let me know if you have any additional comments/suggestions.

Thanks,

Yanjun

From: Eunsung Park <esung.park@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 4:33 PM
To: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: hg.cho@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] CR on Trigger frame: Common Info field format

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.

Hi Yanjun,

Thanks for preparing the CR document.

I have a question on several subfields of the EHT variant Common Info field which were changed to Reserved subfields. In my understanding, the EHT variant Common Info field can be also used to solicit HE TB PPDU. However, some subfields are reserved now in your proposed change, for example, UL STBC subfield is reserved. In that case, how do we solicit HE TB PPDU where UL STBC is applied by using EHT variant Common Info field? Could you please clarify this?

[YS] You brought up a good question that is worth more clarification. In R1, if a non-AP STA decodes an EHT variant Common Info field, the STA cannot transmit an HE TB PPDU as response, based on the motioned text in 21/1233r3 and the following text in D1.1: “If the dot11EHTBaseLineFeaturesImplementedOnly is equal to true, then an EHT AP shall not transmit a Trigger frame that solicits both an HE TB PPDU and an EHT TB PPDU”

[YS] So the scenario you brought up (i.e., HE TB PPDU in response to EHT variant Common Info field) could only occur beyond R1 and therefore it’s safe to mark MU-MIMO HE LTF, UL STBC, Doppler as reserved in R1.

Best regards,

Eunsung

From: Greg Geonjung Ko greg.ko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 11:53 PM
To: Yanjun Sun yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] CR on Trigger frame: Common Info field format

Also I suggest changing the subfield name of B56-B62, because 9.2.2 of the baseline spec mentions about reserved subfields as below.

"Reserved fields and subfields defined in this clause are set to 0 upon transmission and are ignored upon reception"

Based on the baseline text mentioned above, it may be redundant to say that the MU-MIMO EHT-LTF Mode, UL STBC, Doppler subfields are set to 0, if the draft spec already says those bits are reserved.

[YS] Thank you for the helpful inputs and the suggestion looks reasonable to me. How about renaming them back to ‘Unused Reserved’ subfield and setting all of them to 1 by an R1 EHT AP?

From: Arik Klein <arik.klein@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 12:32 PM
To: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: CR on Trigger frame: Common Info field format

Thanks for sharing the document.

I’ve attach my comments in the enclosed doc.

Please review it and respond.

[YS] Thank you for the suggestions. I’ve summarized the key points below so that other folks can follow all the discussions in a single email thread:

You suggested to merge B56-B62 and B63 (Reserved subfield) into one subfield or to rename B56-B62.

I took the 2^nd option you suggested, which is aligned with Greg’s suggestion above as well.
Rationale: the default values for the two subfields are different in HE. It raises awareness on such difference by keeping them separate.

You suggested to rename ‘Special User Info Field Present’ with ‘Special User Info Field Absent’

I agree that your proposal is more readable, but the current text is also technically correct without requiring global updates. As indicated in the CR, I have a SP on the two options and am open to go with one with more support from the group.

Regards,

Arik

From: Yanjun Sun [mailto:yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 1:10 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] CR on Trigger frame: Common Info field format

Hi folks,

We’ve tried to address the comments related to Common Info field format in 21/1333.

Many thanks for the co-authors, especially Lei, for the helpful early inputs.

Please let me know if you have any comments/suggestions.

Thanks,

Yanjun

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