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

Re: [STDS-802-11] WUR MC-OOK Discussion continued

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

Hi Joseph,

 

                Thanks so much for providing this before the IEEE meeting.  I looked it over and have a few comments and one question.

 

Regards,

Steve

--------------

The term “WUR On-Off Keying” is introduced but never defined.  Do we need a definition or is okay to just use this term without definition since it is self-explanatory?

 

In Subclause 30.3.4.1 where you suggest the following change “The last 8 samples of those 32 samples are prepended to the 32 samples generating 40 samples, representing the 2 µs duration WUR MC-OOK On Symbol”  I think we should keep “MC-OOK” since the description is how to construct the OOK symbol using multiple carriers like in OFDM.  So, I would keep that sentence unchanged.  Same comment for 30.3.4.2.

 

In Subclause 3.3.8 in one case, it says “WRU” and not “WUR”.

 

In Subclause 30.3.9.3.2 and Subclause 30.3.10.1, “MC-OOK” has been changed to “WUR OOK” when referring to the recommended cyclic shift values for different TX antennas.  In this case I think we want to stick with “MC-OOK” since all the studied were done with MC-OOK for these cyclic shifts and we do not know what will happen with a different implementation.  These are just recommendations based on studies with MC-OOK so I think we should stick with the original text.

 

In Table AC-2 the caption should end with “using MC-OOK modulation” just like in Table AC-1.  The same applies to Tables AC-3 and AC-4.

 

 

From: Joseph Levy <000019588066c6b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2023 8:03 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] WUR MC-OOK Discussion continued

 

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

Hi All,

 

I have uploaded a contribution that I believe provides text to resolve the WUR MC-OOK discussions:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/23/11-23-0761-00-000m-proposed-tgme-resolution-for-use-of-wur-ook-modulation-and-mc-ook-text-in-d3-0.docx

 

This contribution contains redlined text for clauses 29, 30, and appendix AC. 

Please review and comment. 

 

Regards,

Joseph

 

From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 11:45 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] WUR MC-OOK Discussion continued

 

 

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

Hi Steve,

 

Thanks. Your recollection and the minutes seem to reflect that interpretation. I know that Joseph Levy took an action to prepare a contribution and I asked him to post a link on this thread when he has it ready so that we can get some offline review prior to the meeting. 

 

I'm hopeful that we can resolve this issue in May.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

 

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:25 AM Steve Shellhammer <sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mike,

 

                Thanks for the email.  Here are my thoughts on what the task group needs to do on this topic.

 

At the March IEEE meeting there was reasonably strong support (15/8/4) for the straw poll stating, “Should the specification use distinct terms for the implementation technique and for the over-the-air waveform?”

 

I believe the intent of that straw poll was to use the term “MC-OOK” for the implementation technique and the term “WUR-OOK” for the over-the-air waveform.

 

I believe the amendment currently specifies MC-OOK.  So, I believe the challenge now is to specify WUR-OOK.  One suggestion I heard (from Sean) is that WUR-OOK is specified by all the relevant shall statements currently in the amendment, like the spectral flatness, the correlation test, etc.

 

So far that is the only proposal I have hear for specifying WUR-OOK.   So, I think we need to consider that proposal and if other proposals are brought forth, we can consider those proposals also.

 

Specifying WUR-OOK seems to be the task that needs to be completed.

 

Regards,

Steve

 

From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 9:53 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] WUR MC-OOK Discussion continued

 

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.

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

Hi everyone,

 

Just refreshing this thread and adding the WG reflector. 

 

So, we're good with the changes in the document posted above and I don't have to badger people? :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

 

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:19 PM M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,

 

During the March plenary in the Tuesday PM2 session, we discussed the WUR MC-OOK issues and seemed to reach a consensus on a way forward using document 11-22/1035r2 (https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-1035-02-000m-proposed-tgme-comment-resolution-cid-2346.docx) as a starting point. 

 

My plan is to schedule time to continue this discussion  and come to closure during Tuesday PM2 of the May Interim session.

 

I would appreciate if we could have a reflector discussion on the topic/document  prior to the May meeting so that we can maximize our face-to-face time and come to closure in May.

 

You can find the minutes from the March meeting here:

 

The latest version of Joe's document is posted here:

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

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