Hi Solomon,
I didn’t say that the
aSignalExtension needs to be part of aSIFSTime. What I said is that the aSIFSTime definition in 11bp needs to be combined with aSignalExtension, i.e. 11bp’s SIFS is 10us and at the same time the PPDU carrying 11bp frames also
includes 6us (aSignalExtension) signal extension. With such definition, the neighbor 11STAs have same behavior after detecting the PPDU carrying 11bp frames.
Best Regards,
Liwen
From: Solomon Trainin <solomon.trainin1@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 8:58 AM
To: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-11-TGBP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXT] [STDS-802-11-TGBP] DCN 11-26-0540-01-00bp
|
Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this email' button |
Hi Liwen.
In your comment, you mentioned that aSignalExtension should be added to aSIFSTime and that the sum should become the new aSIFSTime.
The signal extension effect does not affect SIFS. The channel becomes empty for an additional aSignalExtension time on the receiving AMP non-AP STA if the aSignalExtension
parameter is added to TXTIME. This effect is not observed on the transmitting AMP non-AP STA, the transmitting AMP AP STA, the transmitting AMP STA, or the receiving third-party STAs.
IMHO, the aSignalExtension parameter should not be added to TXTIME, as it is not the case in the WUR.
Best Regards,
Solomon Trainin
+972547885738
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBP list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBP&A=1