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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [Question on SP28 of 606r2, run by Wook Bong]答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

Hi Ross,

 

I think you misunderstood.

 

Please see highlighted text.

— The broadcast RU shall be located within:
• The primary 20 MHz channel if the group addressed frame is a FILS Discovery or a Probe Response frame, except when the primary 20 MHz channel does not coincide with a PSC and the AP is a 6 GHz-only AP, in which case the broadcast RU may be in a PSC that is within the BSS operating channel width (see 26.17.2.3 (Scanning in the 6 GHz band)).

 

AP can send FILS or Probe Response in PSC or primary channel.

How a STA knows to decode BW field if it depends on primary channel location?

 

Even if AP sends those frame only in primary channel so the 20MHz channel is not punctured, this way of signaling forces a STA to scan 20MHz at a time even for receiving 80MHz or wider bandwidth PPDU.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Yujian (Ross Yu) [mailto:ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 6:00 PM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [Question on SP28 of 606r2, run by Wook Bong]答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

 

Hi Yongho and Wookbong,

 

Thanks for the good discussion. The motivation to have SP#28 was because of the issue of FILS discovery or unsolicited probe response frame mentioned by Wookbong. This can be solved like you said. Hence it is not an issue for HE PPDU. The motivation to have SP#28 is gone. What’s the real issue now if the preamble puncture information requires primary channel information? In other words, why we need SP#28?

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Wook Bong Lee [mailto:wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年6月10日 6:23
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [Question on SP28 of 606r2, run by Wook Bong]答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

 

Hi Yongho,

 

Thank you.

One problem of what you quoted is the FILS or Probe Response can be transmitted in PSC where the PSC may not be coincide with the primary channel.

 

However, following SP solves the problem indeed. But at least for me, current SP sounds equivalent to the what below SP says.

"802.11be signaling in U-SIG for BW/puncturing information in every non-punctured 20 MHz of an 80 MHz segment shall not require the primary channel information to decode the puncturing pattern of at least the specific 80 MHz that contains the 20 MHz. [#SP28]"

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Yongho Seok [mailto:yongho.seok@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:44 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [Question on SP28 of 606r2, run by Wook Bong]答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

 

Hi Wook Bong, 

 

Like 11ax spec, assigning the broadcast RU to the primary channel can solve the issue.

An HE AP that includes a group addressed frame in an HE MU PPDU shall ensure that the frame is included in a broadcast RU in the HE MU PPDU. The HE AP shall additionally ensure that the following conditions are satisfied for the broadcast RU:
...

— The broadcast RU shall be located within:
• The primary 20 MHz channel if the group addressed frame is a FILS Discovery or a Probe Response frame, except when the primary 20 MHz channel does not coincide with a PSC and the AP is a 6 GHz-only AP, in which case the broadcast RU may be in a PSC that is within the BSS operating channel width (see 26.17.2.3 (Scanning in the 6 GHz band)). The broadcast RU size shall not exceed 106 subcarriers if the MU PPDU has a bandwidth that is greater than 20 MHz.

 

>> Do you want to have a puncturing information in U-SIG (separate from BW field) which requires primary channel information?
This is a PHY decision. I have no issues on this. But, why don't you say it directly like the following?
"802.11be signaling in U-SIG for BW/puncturing information in every non-punctured 20 MHz of an 80 MHz segment shall not require the primary channel information to decode the puncturing pattern of at least the specific 80 MHz that contains the 20 MHz. [#SP28]"

 

Thanks, 

Yongho 

 

2020년 6월 8일 (월) 오후 5:09, Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:

It would be good to have some time to discuss it. We also need some input from MAC guys. Thanks Alfred.

 

Regards

于健, Ross Yu

 

发件人: Alfred Asterjadhi [mailto:asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年6月9日 7:48
收件人: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
抄送: Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [Question on SP28 of 606r2, run by Wook Bong]答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

 

Hi Wook Bong and Ross,

 

Is this item settled or should i add it as part of the items that need further discussion for the Thursday Joint meeting?

 

Thanks,

 

Alfred

 

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:43 AM Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Ross,

 

I believe 11be should allow broadcast frame in 11be PPDU format.

Since I am not MAC expert, I would let MAC people speaking or we can discuss during joint meeting.

 

In my opinion, it would be better if we can have same puncturing information regardless of PPDU type.

But I will wait your further thought.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

From: Yujian (Ross Yu) [mailto:ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:04 PM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 答复: [Question on SP28 of 606r2, run by Wook Bong]答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

 

Hi Wook Bong,

 

Thanks for the detailed response. Please see my comments inline.

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Wook Bong Lee [mailto:wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年6月4日 2:39
收件人: Yujian (Ross Yu) <ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx>; asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [Question on SP28 of 606r2, run by Wook Bong]答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

 

Hi Ross,

 

Thanks for question.

FILS/unsolicited probe response for 6GHz was an example of broadcast frame for unassociated STA.

 

In 11ax, the FILS/unsolicited probe response for 6GHz is sent using non-HT or HE format.

But can we assume there is no broadcast frame(s) for unassociated STA in EHT or EHT+ format?

Ross: that’s something I wonder. So I am asking if you or someone else has any examples/motivations now. Frames for OBSS/unassociated STAs are for discovery as far as I know, which should aim for legacy STAs too.

 

 

The interpretation of SP is puncturing information without knowledge of primary channel information.

Alternative choice will be puncturing information which requires primary channel information.

But this option does not save much overhead while it is partial information which requires additional information (even for 80MHz PPDU, e.g. compressed) in EHT SIG.

Ross: for OFDMA case, the alternative choice can save 1 or 2 bit. For non-OFDMA case, I agree with you additional info is required in EHT even for 80MHz PPDU. Each option has pro and con.

 

Do you want to have a puncturing information in U-SIG (separate from BW field) which requires primary channel information?

Ross: I am still evaluating. If there is no good motivation to have broadcast RUs for unassociated/OBSS STAs. Saving 1 or 2 bit in U-SIG is a good option.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Yujian (Ross Yu) [mailto:ross.yujian@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:51 PM
To: asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Question on SP28 of 606r2, run by Wook Bong]答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

 

Hi Wook Bong,

 

For SP28, I remember the motivation is for the OBSS/unassociated device to decode FILS/unsolicited probe response for 6GHz in-band discovery as shown in your slide 8. However after a second thought, I wonder why those information will be likely sent in EHT format. As there are HE STAs in 6GHz also, so most time, the AP would use:

Assuming there is (incumbent) interference in some non-primary channel:

1)       HE SU in 20MHz

2)       Punctured non-HT duplicate

3)       HE MU PPDU assuming the Rx only decodes one CC only in the detected channel or has received the beacon in advance

 

Assuming there is no  (incumbent) interference:

1)       HE SU >=20MHz

2)       HE MU PPDU w/o puncturing

 

Seems there is no strong motivation to let non-associated/OBSS STAs decode EHT PPDU. How do you think? Do you or anyone else has any better motivations?

 

Straw poll #28

802.11be signaling in U-SIG for BW/puncturing information in every non-punctured 20 MHz of an 80 MHz segment shall allow even an OBSS or unassociated device to decode the puncturing pattern of at least the specific 80 MHz that contains the 20 MHz. [#SP28]

[20/0606r2 (Further discussion on bandwidth and puncturing information, Wook Bong Lee, Samsung), SP#1, Y/N/A: 34/10/8]  

 

 

regards

于健 Ross Yu

Huawei Technologies

 

发件人: Alfred Asterjadhi [mailto:asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2020年6月2日 6:27
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Candidate SFD text contributions for inclusion to TGbe SFD: Call for Review

 

Hello all,

 

Our TGbe Editor has prepared the Rev 26 of the compendium of SPs and potential changes to the SFD, which can be found below: 

 

This is a call for members to review the new SFD text contributions (which are highlighted in yellow  and identified by tags listed as [DCN (Presentation, Author, Affiliation), ...] SP#X, ...) in the compenidum of SPs document.

 

Please do send an e-mail in response to this Call For Review if you would like to identify any of these "new SFD text contributions" as contributions that need further discussion. The deadline for sending these e-mails is June 10th 2020 @10:00am ET.

 

A list of these requested contributions will be queued for discussion and run as a separate motion (Motions >=113) during the Joint conference call scheduled on June 11th 2020.

 

New SFD text contributions that have not received a request for further discussions will be part of the cumulative motion (Motion 112) that will be run at the same Joint conference call. 


Please refer to the document linked below for a list of the motions:

 

For more information please refer to the subclause "Guideline-Building Consensus and Populating the TGbe SFD" in the TGbe teleconference agendas: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0735-15-00be-2020-mar-may-tgbe-teleconference-agendas.docx.

 

If you have any comments and/or questions please let me know.

 

Best Regards,

 

Alfred

--

Alfred Asterjadhi, PhD

IEEE802.11 TGbe Chair,

Qualcomm Technologies Inc.

Cell #:    +1 858 263 9445

Office #: +1 858 658 5302

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


 

--

Alfred Asterjadhi, PhD

IEEE802.11 TGbe Chair,

Qualcomm Technologies Inc.

Cell #:    +1 858 263 9445

Office #: +1 858 658 5302

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

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

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

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