Hi Alfred,
Can you please add the following two motions on DRU for 60MHz DBW to the TGbn agenda for voting?
- Do you support that the Data and pilot subcarrier indices for DRUs in an 60 MHz DBW are defined in following table:
|
Data and pilot subcarrier indices for Distributed-tone
RUs (DRU) in a 60 MHz UHR TB PPDU
|
|
DRU type
|
DRU index
and subcarrier range
|
|
52-tone DRU
i=1:12
|
DRU1
[-499:14:-23, 5:14:229]
|
DRU2
[-492:14:-16, 12:14:236]
|
DRU3
[-496:14:-20, 8:14:232]
|
DRU4
[-489:14:-13, 15:14:239]
|
|
DRU5
[-498:14:-22, 6:14:230]
|
DRU6
[-491:14:-15, 13:14:237]
|
DRU7
[-495:14:-19, 9:14:233]
|
DRU8
[-488:14:-12, 16:14:240]
|
|
DRU9
[-497:14:-21, 7:14:231]
|
DRU10
[-490:14:-14, 14:14:238]
|
DRU11
[-494:14:-18, 10:14:234]
|
DRU12
[-487:14:-11, 17:14:241]
|
|
106-tone DRU
i=1:6
|
DRU1
[-499:7:-9,
5:7:243]
|
DRU2
[-496:7:-6, 8:7:246]
|
DRU3
[-498:7:-8, 6:7:244]
|
DRU4
[-495:7:-5, 9:7:247]
|
|
DRU5
[-497:7:-7, 7:7:245]
|
DRU6
[-494:7:-4, 10:7:248]
|
|
|
|
242-tone DRU
i=1:3
|
DRU1
[-499:7:-9, 5:7:243, -496:7:-6, 8:7:246, -458:21:-38, 25:21:193]
|
DRU2
[-498:7:-8, 6:7:244, -495:7:-5, 9:7:247, -451:21:-31, 32:21:200]
|
|
DRU3
[-497:7:-7, 7:7:245, -494:7:-4,10:7:248, -444:21:-24, 39:21:207]
|
|
- Do you support that the Pilot subcarrier indices for DRUs in an 60 MHz DBW are defined in following table?
Pilot indices for DRU transmission over 60MHz DBW
|
DRU size
|
Pilot indices
|
|
52-tone DRU
i=1:12
|
{-373 -219 -65 159}, {-450 -296 -142 82}, {-412 -258 -104 120}, {-335 -181 -27 197},
{-386 -232 -78 146}, {-463 -309 -155 69}, {-425 -271 -117 107}, {-348 -194 -40 184},
{-399 -245 -91 133}, {-476 -322 -168 56}, {-438 -284 -130 94}, {-361 -207 -53 171},
|
|
106-tone DRU
i=1:6
|
{-450 -296 -142 82}, {-335 -181 -27 197}, {-463 -309 -155 69}, {-348 -194 -40 184},
{-476 -322 -168 56}, {-361 -207 -53 171},
|
|
242-tone DRU
i=1:3
|
{-450 -335 -296 -181 -142 -27 82 197}, {-463 -348 -309 -194 -155 -40 69 184},
{-476 -361 -322 -207 -168 -53 56 171},
|
Supporting List: [25/0154r0]
SP result in PHY ad-hoc: unanimous.
Best regards
Chenchen Liu
发件人: Das, Dibakar <dibakar.das@xxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2025年2月22日 2:00
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Motion request
Hi Alfred,
Can you please add the following motion on
CTDMA/TXOP sharing to the TGbn agenda for voting?
Do you agree that:
- The maximum time allocated by a sharing AP in a TXOP to all shared AP for CTDMA is not larger than the TXOP limit it advertised for the minimum between AC_VI
TxOP limit and the TxOP Limit of the AC it obtains the TxOP with to its associated STAs.
- If TXOP limit for an AC is 0, there is no CTDMA in a TXOP obtained using that AC.
- The sharing AP shall use at least a TBD portion of the obtained TXOP for data communication with its own associated STAs.
Note: similar consideration will apply for TXS mode 2
Supporting List: [24/0093]
SP result in MAC ad-hoc: unanimous.
Regards,
Dibakar
Hi Alfred,
Could you please queue the following motion on CTDMA/TXOP sharing to the TGbn agenda for voting?:
Do you agree to define a mechanism as part of the procedure of time sharing during a TXOP (e.g. C-TDMA, TXS, …) to support fairness to neighboring STAs (APs
and non-APs)?
-
Exact mechanism is TBD
-
Supporting documents: 11-24-93, 11-25-86r0
SP Result:
(don’t recall) think it was 144Y/27N
Regards,
Dibakar
Dear Alfred,
Could you please queue the following motion on P EDCA to the TGbn agenda for voting?:
[M1] Do you agree to define HIP EDCA in UHR where a STA with Low Latency traffic may be allowed, based on TBD conditions, to send a Defer Signal (it is TBD
whether CTS or RTS is used) to start a protected short contention for pending LL data
-
Conditions to be allowed to send a Defer Signal is TBD
-
STA in HiP EDCA always use RTS/CTS as initial frame exchange and retry.
-
Duration of protected short contention is TBD.
-
Access parameters (AIFSN, CW and the expansion rules) used to transmit the Defer Signal are TBD. The retry count where the Defer Signal is allowed to be sent is TBD
-
Contention parameters for the protected short contention are TBD. The STAs that transmitted a Defer Signal but did not win the protected short contention will initiate a new retry.
-
Low Latency traffic is treated as AC_VO traffic. Other cases are TBD.
-
The solution would provide control on the degree of collisions that may occur while using it and, allows for autonomous randomness or/and controlled by the AP
-
No new mandatory synchronization requirement on STA side
-
HIP EDCA is used by the STAs in a BSS only when this feature is enabled by the AP
Supporting doc: 24/1144r1
SP Result:
150Y, 14N, 70A
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
|