Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SP request for CIDs 10988 and 11011 in 22/1482r2

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

Yanjun,

Thanks for the quick response. I didn’t notice some part of the document is already in D2.3. We could discuss offline.

Best regards,

Hanqing

From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 8:49 PM
To: Hanqing Lou <Hanqing.Lou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SP request for CIDs 10988 and 11011 in 22/1482r2

Hi Hanqing,

Thank you for your inputs. The first editorial comment looks reasonable to me. However, all the text in this document except for the TPE part has passed motion and is part of D2.3. So what do you think if we address them in the next round? I didn’t fully follow the 2^nd comment and would like to discuss with you offline to understand your comments better.

Thanks

Yanjun

From: Hanqing Lou <Hanqing.Lou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SP request for CIDs 10988 and 11011 in 22/1482r2

Yanjun,

Thanks for the draft. I had two comments regarding the text attached below.

The first two blue highlighted sentences (with “to be punctured”) are with different style than the last blue highlighted sentence (without “to be punctured”). To make it simpler and consistent, I suggest to change the first two places to “which are not indicated in the Disabled Subchannel Bitmap subfield”. Or even more explicit, we could say “If a 20 MHz subchannel is not indicated to be punctured in the Disable Subchannel Bitmap, it shall not be punctured in an EHT SU transmission that contains an MPDU soliciting an immediate response, unless…. “

If we just read normative text, the EHT NDP PPDU may fit into the case identified by “An EHT MU PPDU that is not …” in non-TB sounding sequence and fit into the case identified by “Otherwise” in TB sounding sequence. It is a quite complicated scenario. Do you think it is clearer if we have NDP covered by a normative text in those two paragraphs explicitly instead of putting it in a Note?

Best regards,

Hanqing

From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 6:48 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SP request for CIDs 10988 and 11011 in 22/1482r2

Hi folks,

I’ve uploaded 22/1482r3 to mentor:

There is only one-line change in the spec text compared r2, which is one redundant sentence deleted on page 8 based on offline inputs from Yongho.
There was also a suggestion to recap the discussions on TPE to refresh everyone’s memory before the SP, as the discussions have lasted for 7 months. So I’ve summarized the discussions on page 5 accordingly

Both changes above are marked by “r3” in the comments. Please let me know if you have any other comments/suggestions.

Thanks

Yanjun

From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 11:31 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] SP request for CIDs 10988 and 11011 in 22/1482r2

Hi Alfred and all,

Could you help add the SP for CIDs 10988 and 11011 (related to TPE) in 22/1482r2 to the next joint queue?

If you have any concerns on the proposed resolution, please let me know.

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