[STDS-802-11-TGBN] Further discussion on CR 2009

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

Dear Gaurang, Giovanni, and Binita,

Many thanks for the comments during the discussion of CR 2009 (attached for reference).

I have reviewed the specification and confirmed that we indeed have text indicating that DBE bandwidth replaces BSS/operating bandwidth for NPCA when the NPCA primary channel is located within the expanded portion of the DBE bandwidth:

If NPCA primary channel is within the expanded portion of the DBE bandwidth, the DBE bandwidth is considered as operating bandwidth for NPCA and any reference to BSS/operating bandwidth and Disabled Subchannel Bitmap in clause 37.18 (Non-primary channel access (NPCA)) refers to the DBE bandwidth and the DBE Disabled Subchannel Bitmap respectively.

However, my understanding is that this provision explicitly applies to references to BSS/operating bandwidth within the NPCA clause.

On the other hand, the existing exception in Clause 37.15.2.4.4 states:

If the Co-RTWT coordinated AP’s TXOP obtained via the NPCA primary channel (see 37.17 (Nonprimary channel access (NPCA))) occupies channel(s) that do not overlap with the BSS operating channel(s) of the Co-RTWT coordinating AP that set the No BSS Operating Channel Extension Beyond UHR field to 1 in the MAPC Negotiation frame that established the MAPC agreement for Co-RTWT with the Co-RTWT coordinated AP, the Co-RTWT coordinated AP may continue its TXOP.

Therefore, I am not convinced that the existing DBE/NPCA provision automatically extends to Clause 37.15.2.4.4, particularly since the latter refers to the BSS operating channels of the Co-RTWT coordinating AP, rather than BSS operating Bandwidth of the AP performing NPCA.

In other words, while the existing text clarifies the interpretation of operating bandwidth within the NPCA procedures, it does not appear to explicitly establish that the DBE bandwidth of the Co-RTWT coordinating AP should also be considered when evaluating the frequency-domain orthogonality condition in Clause 37.15.2.4.4. For this reason, I still believe that some clarification of the normative text may be beneficial, even if the proposed changes could be simplified.

Given this additional consideration, do you still believe that no changes are necessary?

Many thanks,

-Salvatore

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