Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAX] Allowed puncturing patterns

[Mark RISON <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Based on the subsequent discussions on the reflector, I think we need to

run the following two SPs to make progress:

SP1) For 160M/80+80M, should having all the 20M subchannels in the secondary 80M channel punctured be allowed?

SP2) For 160M/80+80M, should having more than two adjacent 20M subchannels punctured be allowed?

Note: for 160M this includes channels adjacent between the primary and secondary 80M channels, e.g. the ---xxx-- pattern

Thanks,

Mark

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 18:41, Mark RISON <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is the follow-up to the teleconf discussion just now, to

attempt to reach consensus on which puncturing patterns are and

are not allowed.

 

STRAWMAN PROPOSAL:

 

If the primary 20 MHz channel is the leftmost one, and x means

punctured, - means not punctured and ? means can be punctured,

then these correspond to only allowing the following patterns

in each case (obviously the patterns will get rearranged if the

P20 is not the leftmost one) for the value of the Bandwidth

field in the HE-SIG-A field of an HE MU PPDU:

 

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--???? but not -x--xxxx

7) --x-???? but not --x-xxxx, or

   ---x???? but not ---xxxxx, or

   --xx???? but not --xxxxxx

 

During the teleconf I think I heard some variants proposed (calling

the one above z):

 

a) Allow full puncturing of S80, i.e.:

 

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--???? including -x--xxxx

7) --x-???? including --x-xxxx, or

   ---x???? including ---xxxxx, or

   --xx???? including --xxxxxx

 

b) Don't allow any puncturing of S80 (maybe the D1.0 wording?), i.e.:

 

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x------

7) --x----- or

   ---x---- or

   --xx----

 

c) Allow "any 2" puncturing for the 7 case (I think I heard something

like that?), i.e.:

 

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--???? [all x for ? TBD]

7) --x-???? where exactly one of the ?s is a x, or

   ---x???? where exactly one of the ?s is a x, or

   ----???? where exactly two of the ?s are an x, or

   --xx----

 

d) Or was it "at least 2" puncturing for the 7 case, i.e.:

 

4) -x--

5) --x- or ---x

6) -x--???? [all x for ? TBD]

7) --x-???? where between 1 and 3 (4 TBD) of the ?s are xs, or

   ---x???? where between 1 and 3 (4 TBD) of the ?s are xs, or

   ----???? where between 2 and 3 (4 TBD) of the ?s are xs, or

   --xx???? where between 0 and 3 (4 TBD) of the ?s are xs

 

Plus a variant to any of the above:

 

e) For any/all of the above, don't allow more than 2 adjacent xs

for the 160M case (obviously N/A for 80 and I think also for 80+80)

 

Please select your option (z or a-d, plus e) or otherwise describe

your understanding.

 

Happy Easter, and best wishes to you, your colleagues and your families,

 

Mark

--

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN   English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre       Tel: +44 1223  434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS      Fax: +44 1223  434601
ROYAUME UNI                             WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

--

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN   English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre       Tel: +44 1223  434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS      Fax: +44 1223  434601
ROYAUME UNI                             WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

---

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAX&A=1