| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Rui, Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
To some extent I agree with you that defining some formulas to make the CSI variation clear has its benefits, but also there are some drawbacks (See 21/351, 21/1069 for details,
especially in Slide 7 of 21/1069, I listed Pros and Cons there). After the discussions, most people seem to prefer the implementation specific way.
How about I put a “TBD” in the motion text shown below? TBD indicates that the degree 0 and 1 may be implementation specific or determined by some formulas, and it can be discussed later. For example, degree 0 indicates the two CSIs are almost the same,
and degree 1 indicates that the correlation coefficient of the two CSI vectors indicates orthogonal. Your further thoughts on degree 0 and 1 are also welcome.
Motion 1 Move to add the following to 11bf SFD:
Best regards, Mengshi Hu 发件人: stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxx <stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxx>
代表 Rui Yang Hi Mengshi, Thank you for the detailed clarifications. Yes, my first question was about the definition of CSI variation.
My concern is that, if the definition of “CSI variation” is implementation specific, the meaning of “degree difference” and mapping to the internal [0, 1] will all be implementation
specific. This could make the threshold-based method less useful, especially when we need to consider the interoperability of devices with different implementations. In addition, without clear definition of CSI variation, I don’t know what “the largest (or the smallest) degree of the CSI variation” is. To make the threshold-based method meaningful,
I believe it should be the theoretically largest value, rather than some value based on measurements. Otherwise, the feedback about higher or lower a threshold will not be consistent over time for each device. To deal with this issue, the definition and/or
the characteristics of CSI variation may need to be specified. Best regards, Ray From: humengshi <humengshi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Rui, Thanks for your comments. Please see the replies shown here: Q1:
Do you mean “the definition
and the estimation of CSI are implementation specific”? A1: I think here what you wanted to ask is the
“CSI variation”, instead of the CSI, because we do not touch the definition and estimation method of CSI. The CSI is just the traditional one. If your question
is on the CSI variation, my answer is: 1. The definition of CSI variation is not implementation specific (See A2 below). 2. The estimation or calculation of the CSI variation is implementation specific, but the final estimation result shall be in a closed
interval [0,1]. This will provide benefits for the metric unification and the threshold adaptation. Q2:
What is the definition of “CSI variation”? From SFD, I see “The difference between the current measured CSI and the previous measured CSI is quantified. The difference is referred to as CSI variation.”
Is this the definition? If so, what does “difference” mean here? A2: This is not the exact definition. According to some discussions in the call, people think more details can be added to the above sentence. For example, one type of the CSI variation
can be: the degree of the difference between the current measured CSI and the previous latest measured CSI. Another type can be: the degree of the difference between the current measured CSI and a marked CSI or the latest reported CSI, etc. Maybe the initiator
can choose which CSI variation the responder should report. This can be further discussed. Regarding the word
“difference”, I agree with you that this is implementation specific. If you think the definition for CSI variation shall clarify how to calculate the degree of
the difference, my thought is that you can say it is implementation specific. Q3: Is “CSI” defined in frequency domain or in time domain? A3: Frequency domain. Your further comments and questions are welcome. In addition, according to some discussions (people think it is a little bit confusing to say
“indicates a minimum CSI variation” and
“indicates a maximum CSI variation”), I update the 1st motion text (corresponding to the SP 1 in 1364/r3) to make it clear: Motion 1 Move to add the following to 11bf SFD:
Best regards, Mengshi Hu 发件人: Rui Yang <Rui.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mengshi, Thank you for posting the motion texts.
I have a few questions about Motion 1: Do you mean “the definition
and the estimation of CSI are implementation specific”? If not, what is the definition of “CSI variation”? From SFD, I see “The difference between the current measured CSI and the previous measured CSI is quantified. The difference is referred to as
CSI variation.” Is this the definition? If so, what does “difference” mean here? And, is “CSI” defined in frequency domain or in time domain?
Best regards, Ray From: humengshi <humengshi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Tony, I also would like to submit 2 motion requests corresponding to the contribution 21/1364r3. Motion 1 Move to add the following to 11bf SFD:
Corresponding document 21/1364r3, SP results: 14Yes, 5 No, 6 Abstain Motion 2 Move to add the following to 11bf SFD:
Corresponding document 21/1364r3, SP results: 16 Yes, 1 No, 6 Abstain Best wishes, Mengshi Hu 发件人:
stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxx <stds-802-11-tgbf@xxxxxxxx>
代表 durui (D) Hi Tony, I would like to submit 2 motion requests corresponding to the contributions 21/0876r3 and 21/1288r2. Motion 1 Move to adopt the document (21/0876r3) as the official Evaluation Methodology and Simulation Scenarios document for IEEE 802.11 bf ? Simulation is not mandatory for any contributions. Corresponding document 21/0876r3, SP results: 20 Yes, 0 No, 6 Abstain Motion 2
l
Move to adopt Truncated Channel Impulse Response(TCIR) described as follows as one optional type of the sensing measurement results ?
Ø
Calculating the CIR (time domain) from CSI/CFR (frequency domain) through IFT(usually, IFFT) .
Ø
Reporting the subset of complex samples corresponding to the range of interest of the entire CIR . Note: the size of the subset is TBD. Corresponding document 21/1288r2, SP results: 24 Yes, 6 No, 16 Abstain Best wishes, Rui Du 发件人: Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) [mailto:tony.hanxiao@xxxxxxxxxx]
Dear all, This is a reminder and
call for submissions for the upcoming
meeting on
September 28 (Tuesday), 10:00am – 12:00pm
ET. Please note:
•
DCN, Title, Author (affiliation), Time duration
a.
If there is not enough time during the meeting, the presentation will be delayed to the next meeting.
b.
If there is enough time during the meeting, the presentation will be moved to the end of the queue and be presented in the end. However, any related SP should be delayed
to the next meeting.
Meeting number: 234 154 47759
Meeting password: wireless (94735377 from phones and video systems)
Join by phone: Tap to call in from a mobile device (attendees only)
+1-408-418-9388 USA Toll
Access code: 234 154 47759
Join from a video system or application Dial
23415447759@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number.
Join using Microsoft Lync or Microsoft Skype for Business Dial
23415447759.ieeesa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Need help? Go to
http://help.webex.com
Best Regards : ) Tony Xiao
Han To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1 |