Hi All,
11-26/0733r0 was presented in the Tuesday TGbn PHY call. We had a discussion on the usage of "assigned RU" vs "assigned RU, MRU or DRU" but didn't converge. This email is to solicit more responses to try to converge on this topic. Below is a summary of the topic:
- In Revmf D2.0, "assigned RU" was used as a more logical RU concept that includes RU and MRU for 11be. It was also used for 11ax without ambiguity.
- Previously in the spec drafting of the UHR variant User Info field, I extended this "assigned RU" and it includes any PHY RU types (e.g., "RU or MRU" and "DRU").
- A first suggestion is that it's better to say an "assigned RU, MRU, or DRU" (in this particular order) for clarity and avoid ambiguity. An "assigned MRU" or "assigned DRU" is specific. But an "assigned RU" may be ambiguous whether it is referring to a single RU or a general concept that includes MRU and DRU.
- A second suggestion is to define a logical MAC RU concept (reusing "assigned RU" or calling it "logical RU") to differentiate from the PHY concept. MAC subclauses don't need to spell out "RU, MRU or DRU".
I think both suggestions make sense. Seems some PHY folks lean towards the first suggestion. I want to know if we go with the first suggestion, how much impact is there to the MAC subclauses? Could you please provide your feedback on this topic if interested? Appreciate it!
Regards,
Alice