Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on CID 6988

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

Hi Rojan,

Thank you for your email.

I believe the cited conditions in the tables (in clause 9.3.3) would apply to inclusion of elements in the core frame and not to the ones carried within a subelement carried in that frame. The condition for inclusion of elements within a subelement would be covered under the description for that element (in clause 9 and/or normative clause). For example, in case of MBSSID, we say that certain elements are inherited while others are included within the Nontransmitted BSSID Profile subelement when the corresponding condition is satisfied by that nonTxBSSID. See REVme D1.0 P2661L6:

We have stated similar condition in TGbe. Please see TGbe D1.4 P50L36:

Regards,
Abhi

From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2022 7:09 PM
To: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Discussion on CID 6988

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

Hi Abhi,

Personally I would have thought that adding exception for EHT STAs are best placed in 35.15 (EHT BSS operation), but I leave that to you. In addition, to allow this change we also need to modify clause 9 which also state that restriction on STA 6G, as an example:

Regards,

Rojan

From: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 10:00 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on CID 6988

Hi Tomo,

Thank you for your email.

I received offline feedback from a few other members with the suggestion to keep the text that was proposed in doc 308r1 since it captures the intended meaning and leaves no ambiguity. Below snippet with minor modifications to shorten the sentence:

Regards,
Abhi

From: Tomo Adachi <tomo.adachi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2022 6:27 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on CID 6988

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

Hi Abhi,

The new proposed change looks as though, for an EHT STA, those elements are allowed in any case.

The point here should be on the notification of the operating 6 GHz channel itself.

May need further polish, but something like “A STA 6G shall not transmit … for the notification of the operating 6 GHz channel(s).”

Best regards,

tomo

From: Abhishek Patil <appatil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2022 12:28 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on CID 6988

Hi All,

During Thursday’s TGbe MAC call, we ran out of time and couldn’t conclude the discussion on CID 6988.

6988

Sanghyun Kim

35.3.2.3

249.28

11ax spec says "A STA 6 G shall not transmit HT/VHT Capabilities/Operation element". Need to allow 6 GHz reporting STA to transmit HT/VHT elements for reported STA (of the same MLD).

As in comment

Rojan had concerns making changes to clause 26 as it relates to HE. However, all EHT STAs are HE STAs and TGbe has already been making several changes within this clause which are EHT specific (e.g., D1.4 P335 L16, L30, L46, L53 etc). Therefore, I propose the following change as a resolution to this CID:

26.17.2.1 General

A STA 6G, that is not an EHT STA, shall not transmit an HT Capabilities element, VHT Capabilities element, HT Operation element, VHT Operation element, or an HE Operation element that contains a VHT Operation Information field.

I’d like to hear your thoughts/opinions.

Regards,

Abhi

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