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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] [EXT] 答复: Discusssion for the Sensing Trigger frame

Thanks all for your feedback and I am fine with whichever approach we would like to;  B4 or B3. I recognized that Dong reused B4 to signal between 1-byte vs. 2-byte ‘Trigger dependent common info field’ so that we could use one byte for SR2SR sounding (which is Passive sounding for ranging). That is the motivation however, I am fine with either approach.

 

Ali

 

From: Dong Wei <dong.wei@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:42 AM
To: narengerile <0000191914038692-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx; Ali Raissinia <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; osama.aboulmagd@xxxxxxxxxx; dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx; Mahmoud.Kamel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; humengshi <humengshi@xxxxxxxxxx>; rajat.pushkarna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dongxiandong@xxxxxxxxxx; 'HUANG LEI' <huang.lei1@xxxxxxxx>; 'Claudio da Silva' <claudiodasilva@xxxxxx>; Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) <tony.hanxiao@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: hg.cho@xxxxxxx; js.choi@xxxxxxx; insun.jang@xxxxxxx; sanggook.kim@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [EXT] 答复: Discusssion for the Sensing Trigger frame

 

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

Hi Ali,

 

Thanks for your interesting suggestion!

 

I would like to echo Dongguk and Naren for keeping the use of B4 to indicate sensing versus ranging. In your table, you listed five subtypes of sensing TF. There may be two subtypes of TF needed for threshold-base reporting, which leads to a total of six subvariants. Thus, I feel that it may be safer to keep the four bits B0 – B3 for defining ranging/sensing subvariants.  

 

Best regards,

 

Dong

 

 

Caution: EXT Email

Hello Ali

 

Thank you for providing the table.

 

I intend to agree with Dongguk that using B4 is a very simple and clean way to do the trick if we agree on reusing Ranging trigger frames. Using B4 will allow either ranging or sensing to have the flexibility to define more trigger subtypes for possible future use.

 

In my humble opinion, if B3 is used for sensing/ranging indication, at least 5 values for trigger subtypes become invalid for either ranging or sensing. For example, value = 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, cannot be used for ranging any more. Otherwise it may cause confusion for sensing clients.

 

If B4 is used for sensing/ranging indication, either ranging or sensing has 16 values available to define trigger subtypes. At the current stage, I think it might be better to keep the possibility for defining more trigger subtypes for potential future use.

 

Please do correct me if I am wrong.

 

Thanks,

Naren

发件人: Dongguk Lim [mailto:dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2022年9月7日 13:57
收件人: 'Ali Raissinia' <alirezar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Osama AboulMagd <Osama.AboulMagd@xxxxxxxxxx>; dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx; Mahmoud.Kamel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; humengshi <humengshi@xxxxxxxxxx>; rajat.pushkarna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dongxiandong@xxxxxxxxxx; 'HUANG LEI' <huang.lei1@xxxxxxxx>; 'Claudio da Silva' <claudiodasilva@xxxxxx>; Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) <tony.hanxiao@xxxxxxxxxx>; narengerile <narengerile@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
抄送: hg.cho@xxxxxxx; js.choi@xxxxxxx; insun.jang@xxxxxxx; sanggook.kim@xxxxxxx
主题: RE: Discusssion for the Sensing Trigger frame

 

 

Hi Ali,

 

Thanks for your suggestion.

 

To avoid misunderstanding or remove the ambiguity according to a value of the Trigger Subtype field in the Trigger dependent common info subfield, I think that reserved values (i.e., it was not used in 11az) can be assigned to the variant of the sensing Trigger frame.

However, as you know we considered the reuse of the ranging Trigger frame format for the sensing trigger frame. since we inherit the ranging frame format for the sensing trigger frame format, by using the value of this subfield, STA can recognize the variant of the trigger frame which was already indicated by using the Trigger type field. Thus, I think that it needs the indication whether it is a ranging trigger or a sensing Trigger, and for that using B4 is a very simple and clear way without additional ambiguity.

So, even though we assign the reserved value which is not used in the ranging Trigger frame for the variant of sensing Trigger frame as suggested by Ali, I think that the use of B4 to indicate the type of Trigger frame is still useful and helpful for a clear distinction between two Trigger frame.

 

Best regards,

Dongguk.

 

 

Gents,

 

Does it make sense to change the table to indicate the subtypes for Poll, Sounding and Report as 8, 9, 10  and keep B4 as reserved in case we need it for something else?

 

The table would look like below. Of course we could still use B4 for sensing?

 

B0-B2

Ranging/Sensing

Trigger Subvariant

B3

Ranging/Sensing

0

Poll

0

Ranging

1

Sounding

2

Secure Sounding

3

Report

4

Passive Sounding

5-7

Reserved

8

Poll

1

Sensing

9

SR2I Sounding

10

Basic Report

11

SR2SR Sounding

12

Threshold Report

13-15

Reserved

 

 

 

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

 

Dear All,

 

I hope you had a nice holiday.

 

I knew that some members would like to discuss this topic by scheduling additional meetings. However, since we have scheduled many CCs for the discussion of other topics this week, it is hard to schedule another CC for this discussion for the sensing Trigger frame. in addition, the 802.11 Interim sessions are scheduled for next week. 

Thus, first of all, I would like to discuss the sensing Trigger topic by using the email discussion to gather opinions for other members.

I revised the CR document for the sensing Trigger frame based on the Comments received during the last CC.

For the indication of this modification, I add the memo in the attached document and add also some discussion points using the memo.

Attached, Please take look at it. I look forward to the good comments from you.

 

Best regards,

Dongguk.

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________________

Dongguk Lim

Chief Technology Officer IoT Connectivity Standard Task/Professional

LG Electronics Inc

19, Yangjae-daero 11-gil, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea

M.82-10-8996-4690  E.dongguk.lim@xxxxxxx

___________________________________________________________________

 

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