Hi Assaf,
Thanks for your comment. Note that In our presentation we already considered this case, and explicitly noted that in one sensing session there can be multiple Sensing Responders.
I believe we are therefore aligned.
Best,
Cheng
From: Assaf Kasher <akasher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 11:32 PM
To: Chen, Cheng <cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Alecsander Eitan <eitana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Solomon Trainin <strainin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Some questions for "0807-00-SENS-wlan-sensing-definitions"
Hi Chen,
In 11az the normal usage is of multiple ISTAs (normally non-AP devices) requesting service from an AP, and the AP serving them together,
mainly to save airtime.
In some sensing applications, a single STA may transmit a packet on which measurements need to be performed, and may request feedback from
several STAs (saving air time again, and providing some signal information). This may require some coordination (“scheduling”) between the ISTA and several “RSTA”. I understand that when the ISTA is the receiver of the measurements coordination between
the transmitter is less of an issue, but the other direction is still valid (regardless of frequency band). Therefore we may need to consider cases of one ISTA and several RSTAs.
Thanks,
Assaf
From: Chen, Cheng <cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 7:36 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] Some questions for "0807-00-SENS-wlan-sensing-definitions"
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization.
Hi Chenchen,
If you look at the basic definition of a FTM session defined in 11az, it clearly indicates an FTM session is always between an initiating STA and a responding STA.
11az D2.0 Section 11.2.6.1
An FTM session is an instance of an FTM procedure between
an initiating STA and a responding
STA along with the associated scheduling and operational parameters (see 9.4.2.167 (Fine
Timing Measurement Parameters element)) and 9.4.2.296 (Ranging Parameters element)).
As a result, the definition here is stricter and only allows one ISTA and one RSTA.
The reason here in the figure that we may have multiple ISTAs in one measurement sounding and measurement reporting is because
the RSTA here has setup overlapping FTM sessions with multiple ISTAs, which is totally allowed per 11az spec. It is NOT because the ISTA establishes one FTM session with multiple RSTAs.
11az D2.0 Section 11.2.6.1
A responding STA (RSTA) might be required to establish
overlapping FTM sessions with a large
number of initiating STAs (e.g., an AP providing measurements to STAs at a mall or a store).
Moreover, an ISTA could setup multiple FTM sessions with different responding STAs too. But within one FTM session, it is always one ISTA and one RSTA.
11az D2.0 Section 11.2.6.1
On
the other hand,
an initiating STA (ISTA) might have multiple ongoing FTM sessions on the same
or different channels with different responding STAs, while being associated with an AP for
the
exchange of data or signaling.
Best,
Cheng
From: liuchenchen <liuchenchen1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:35 PM
To: durui (D) <ray.du@xxxxxxxxxx>; Chen, Cheng <cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxx>; Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) <tony.hanxiao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Da Silva, Claudio <claudio.da.silva@xxxxxxxxx>; Sadeghi, Bahareh <bahareh.sadeghi@xxxxxxxxx>; zhangmeihong <zhangmeihong@xxxxxxxxxx>;
sunyingxiang <sunyingxiang@xxxxxxxxxx>; Cordeiro, Carlos <carlos.cordeiro@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 答复: Some questions for "0807-00-SENS-wlan-sensing-definitions"
Hi Cheng
I checked the 11az standard. It seems that there can be multiple initiators in one ranging measurement session as shown in the following captured figure from 11az draft. So we may not
need to limit the number of initiator to be one in your coming straw poll. What is your opinion?
Thanks
Best Regards
Chenchen LIU
发件人:
durui (D)
发送时间: 2020年5月28日 9:29
收件人: Chen, Cheng <cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxx>; Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) <tony.hanxiao@xxxxxxxxxx>
抄送: Da Silva, Claudio <claudio.da.silva@xxxxxxxxx>; Sadeghi, Bahareh <bahareh.sadeghi@xxxxxxxxx>; liuchenchen <liuchenchen1@xxxxxxxxxx>;
zhangmeihong <zhangmeihong@xxxxxxxxxx>; sunyingxiang <sunyingxiang@xxxxxxxxxx>; Cordeiro, Carlos <carlos.cordeiro@xxxxxxxxx>
主题: 答复: Some questions for "0807-00-SENS-wlan-sensing-definitions"
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for your reply and please see inline.
Best wishes,
Rui Du
华为技术有限公司 HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
发件人:
Chen, Cheng [mailto:cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年5月27日 23:45
收件人: Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) <tony.hanxiao@xxxxxxxxxx>
抄送: Da Silva, Claudio <claudio.da.silva@xxxxxxxxx>; Sadeghi, Bahareh <bahareh.sadeghi@xxxxxxxxx>; durui (D) <ray.du@xxxxxxxxxx>;
liuchenchen <liuchenchen1@xxxxxxxxxx>; zhangmeihong <zhangmeihong@xxxxxxxxxx>; sunyingxiang <sunyingxiang@xxxxxxxxxx>; Cordeiro,
Carlos <carlos.cordeiro@xxxxxxxxx>
主题: RE: Some questions for "0807-00-SENS-wlan-sensing-definitions"
Hi Tony,
Thanks for the comments. Please see inline.
Best,
Cheng
From: Hanxiao (Tony, WT Lab) <tony.hanxiao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 1:46 AM
To: Chen, Cheng <cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Da Silva, Claudio <claudio.da.silva@xxxxxxxxx>; durui (D) <ray.du@xxxxxxxxxx>;
liuchenchen <liuchenchen1@xxxxxxxxxx>; zhangmeihong <zhangmeihong@xxxxxxxxxx>;
sunyingxiang <sunyingxiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Some questions for "0807-00-SENS-wlan-sensing-definitions"
Hi Cheng Chen,
My colleagues have a few questions for your proposal, so I help them to forward the questions:
1.
In slide3, the first category is radar based method, and the second category is CSI based method. So, why you put the 'radar' for mmWave and 'CSI' for sub 7GHz. In my opinion, this
is independent of operating frequencies.
[Cheng] We are not placing a hard limit between the technologies and frequency bands, and it is not our intent to do so. We used the word “often”
based on the observations that so far the ‘radar’ based method are typically illustrated in mmWave use cases, but we agree with you that theoretically it can be used in any frequency bands.
[Rui] Considering Alecs also has the similar concerns about this during the meeting, can you modify it in your slides. And if
you are going to present or discuss the slides next time, can you clarify it in the
meeting.
2.
In side6, which STA dose the sensing processing? If STA2 dose the sensing processing, then STA2 should support the WLAN sensing, right?
[Cheng] In slide 6 STA2 is doing the processing of sensing packets. By saying ‘support WLAN sensing’ here we are mainly indicating STA 1 is the STA
who will use the sensing results for specific sensing applications. Depending on the sensing protocol we will define, STA 2 could be a legacy STA and does not need to support anything new in some cases. For example, if we simply reuse existing beamforming
protocol to do sensing, then STA2 could be a legacy STA and send beamforming results back. However, if we define some new protocols, I agree then STA2 needs to support the new protocol.
3.
In your mind, what is the content of sensing measurement report? E.g., compressed beamforming matrix or some sensing results after processing？
[Cheng] I think this question is out of the scope of this contribution of ours. But I agree this will be a topic we eventually need to decide when
it comes to technical discussion in TG.
Best Regards : )
Tony Xiao Han
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1