| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---Minyoung,
Perhaps some examples would help:
- In 30.1 (PHY Introduction), it says, “MC-OOK is defined as an on-off keying, modulated with a multicarrier signal. The multicarrier signal should be generated using contiguous 13 subcarriers, …”. I’ll start with an admission that I’m not a PHY guy, so perhaps this “should” is not really as open-ended as it sounds, but it reads as if _any_ multicarrier OOK modulation can be used, and not necessarily _this_ multicarrier definition. Is that the intention?
- Similar “should”s appear in 30.3.4.1, .2 and .3.
- Annex AC then says, “Subclauses 30.3.4.1, 30.3.4.2, and 30.3.4.3 provides a description of how the 2 μs duration MC-OOK and 4 μs duration MC-OOK On and Off Symbols might be constructed but does not provide the actual frequency domain sequences for those symbols. This annex provides example sequences for the construction of these symbols.” Which again reads like it agrees that 30.3.4.X are not specific, and this Annex adds only an _example_ of how it could be implemented more specifically.
If I’m off-base with all this, my apologies, perhaps you can clarify how this is specific enough to ensure interoperability.
Thanks. Mark
From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:00 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] REVme CID 2346
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi Minyoung,
Thanks for your response. Could you take a look at Mark Hamilton's reply and answer some of his questions. That would
help towards progressing the resolution to this comment.
Thanks,
Mike
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:11 PM Minyoung Park <mpark.ieee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
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