Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/7

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

Hi Ming, Guogang,

Please see my response and follow-up questions for your comments on the 3 CIDs below:

1. The resolution for CID 17998 you cited was discussed in the Orlando meeting, here is a brief recap of the discussions as you couldn’t attend the 11be session then:

An AP may indicate puncturing update in the EHT Operation element in Beacon directly or indicate an upcoming update in element used by (e)CSA procedures. Both will be marked as critical update. The CSA based approach gives a non-AP STA more time to react/prepare, in case the STA is in various conditions such as PS mode, coexistence or interference, which was why we added “recommend”.
We had “may” initially as the choice is up to the AP. However, we received offline comment to change it to “shall”, because those are the only two possible elements for the update and they’re both called out in the text.

I don’t have a strong preference on shall vs may, as the intention to clarify the difference between the two, and raise the awareness that the AP may use any of the two elements to indicate the update. Do you have a strong preference to use “may”? I could revert it back to the “may” rule in r1 if others are also ok with it.

2. On the resolution for CID 17893, as others also commented in the call, the objective is to provide complete info on the reporting link for CSA, which gives a non-AP STA the flexible on how it wants to handle the CSA: either get all the info by receiving a Beacon on the reported link as in your CR or simply get all the info on the reporting link.

You had a question on whether Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch should also be added to the list. I double checked afterwards and confirmed that it’s already included in the Channel Switch Wrapper as in the figure below. Do you still see any other potential technical issue with our proposal?

3. On the resolution for CID 18183, you’ve mentioned an alternative solution based on option1 while using the reserved bits. Were you referring to reserved values 4-7 in the table at the bottom of this email thread? I couldn’t find rules in baseline spec on how a legacy STA handles the reserved values. Could you elaborate more on your alternative proposal? Some clarification would help.

Thanks

Yanjun

From: Ganming(Ming Gan) <000017d5b1a95115-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 11:09 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1

Hi Yanjun

Thanks for hold on the following new added text for a while.

To indicate a puncturing pattern change for the current BSS operating channel, an EHT AP shall use an EHT Operation element or a Channel Switch Wrapper element (see 35.15.3 (Channel switching methods for an EHT BSS)).

NOTE—The Channel Switch Count field in a Channel Switch Announcement element or an Extended Channel Switch Announcement element sent together with the Channel Switch Wrapper element allows the AP to notify the associated non-AP STAs in advance about the upcoming puncturing pattern, so it is recommended to use the Channel Switch Wrapper element to indicate the puncturing pattern change.

Usually for important parameters change, it is covered by critical update procedure . Note that Modification of the EHT Operation element is a critical update event. Not sure why we need “shall” requirement here, especially for Channel Switch Wrapper element. The new added note also looks weird, why do you use (recommend) “channel switch” procedure to notify puncturing pattern change?

Best wishes

Ming Gan

发件人: Yanjun Sun [mailto:yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2023年6月7日 22:05
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1

Hi Guogang,

I haven’t got time to read 691r4 yet, but our proposal is on AP behavior and doesn’t seem contradicting with non-AP STA’s own choice that you mentioned.

I’m not very clear about your comment on TPE. Option 1 below for EIRP is not using reserved bits due to back forward compatibility issue. Are you referring to the PSD related text? Let’s clarify during the call.

Thanks

Yanjun

From: huangguogang <huangguogang1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 6:54 PM
To: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1

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

For the Channel Switch Wrapper element, I still don’t think it is really needed. The simple way is to let non-AP STA to receive a new Beacon frame as mentioned in 691r4. It is late to add additional signal given this current stage. For TPE, Initially, I chose option 1 by using reserved bits, let me think about which option should be selected given that there are multiple options.

Regards

Guogang Huang

发件人: huangguogang
发送时间: 2023年6月7日 9:34
收件人: 'Yanjun Sun' <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: 答复: Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1

Hi Yanjun,

Could you defer this CR document and arrange a call to have more discussion on it? Please let me know which time is good for you.

Regards

Guogang Huang

发件人: Yanjun Sun [mailto:yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2023年6月6日 1:30
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1

Hi Alfred and all,

I’ve updated the CR to 23/728r2 based on two constructive feedbacks received offline:

Replaced Bandwidth Indication element with Channel Switch Wrapper element to based on CID 16666, as an MLD need transmit power limits and puncturing pattern on the new channel, both of which are already provided by the Channel Switch Wrapper element
Revised text in the resolution for CID 17998 to use shall instead of may because EHT Operation element and Channel Switch Wrapper element are the only two possible elements for an EHT AP to indicate puncturing pattern update

If there is no other comment/concern on the CR, I’d like to queue the SP for this CR in the joint queue.

Thanks

Yanjun

From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 8:34 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1

Hi folks,

During today’s joint session, we’ve recapped the issue, candidate solutions and prior spec text in 23/728r1 as in the highlighted summary below.

It’ll help the group make progress if you could share any suggestion on alternative solutions or any change to the proposed spec text in the CR.

Discussion for CID 18183:

Issue: for TPE indicating an EIRP, there is no normative text on how to interpret reserved values for the Maximum Transmit Power Count subfield, so the behavior of a legacy STA is unknown if any value between 4-7 is used

A picture containing text, screenshot, font, number

Description automatically generated

To avoid interop issues with the legacy STAs deployed in the field, the group has discussed two options in the past:

Option1: Append a new subfield to the existing TPE, which is an extensible element

Pros: lowest overhead (1 octet only), proposed text in 22/1482r7 has been discussed

Option2: Carry an EHT TPE together with the legacy TPE in a Beacon frame

Pros: more flexibility for future expansion, not getting enough support due to larger overhead

Option3: any other proposal?

The text in 728r1 is copied from 22/1482r7 based on option1.

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