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

Re: [STDS-802-11] REVme CID 2346

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi Mike,

The original resolution to keep MC-OOK is correct. 
Throughout the 11ba specification, there is no use of OOK and in TGba there was lengthy debate how to generate the WUR signal which ended up defining MC-OOK.

Regards,
Minyoung

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 5:43 PM M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Just updating the subject with the CID number.

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:19 PM <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All,

 

FYI – my “No” vote on this topic (which may or may not represent others) was driven by a concern that I believe there is a mixture of OOK (generically) and MC-OOK, in the relevant 11ba text.  It is very hard to tell if MC-OOK truly is just an “example” of one way OOK could be done (and still be compliant to the Standard).  There are statements that this is the case (MC-OOK is just one way to do it).  But, there are other places where sentences seem to say (on a careful read) that MC-OOK is actually required.  I am assuming that the former (MC-OOK is just one way to do it) is the intention, and we should “clean up” other places (maybe including the definition, maybe adding a definition of OOK?) to be consistent with this.

 

I’d be very curious if the 11ba experts agree with my general assumption, above.  (I volunteered to help Joe with his resolution, so would like to head in the right direction.)

 

Thanks.  Mark

 

From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 6:04 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] REVme CID

 

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

Hello everyone,

 

During motions in REVme today, the resolution to approve the resolution to CID 2346 (see below) failed. The CID requests a definition for MC-OOK to be removed. 

 

I think it would be good to get feedback from those who participated in 11ba so that any changes made are aligned with the text rolled in from P802.11ba-2021. 

 

This CID has been assigned to Joseph Levy. Please provide feedback on this thread so that we can reach consensus on a resolution.

 

Thanks,


Mike

 

 

REVme CC36 Comments

2346

256.00

3.4

J

MC-OOK is a strange definition.  Is MC-OOK symbol different than regular OOK symbols, particularly the definition of MC-OOK OFF symbol sounds rather strange.

please clarify how MC-OOK is different than regular OOK, and is the spec mandating this OOK symbol must be generated by Multiple Carrier? If not, consider removing this definition.

REJECTED (GEN: 2022-04-27 21:11:08Z) MC-OOK was added by 11ba and indicates the symbols used by 11ba.  The definition is for a multicarrier on-off keying (MC-OOK) symbol.  There is no use of just "OOK", only this definition and usage.

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

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