Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] draft text for three subclauses in "34.3.2 Subcar

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

Hi Eunsung, Yan,

Several more comments:

1. "The EHT tone plan for a 160/80+80MHz PPDU consists of the tone plans of two 80MHz segments. The EHT tone plan for a 240/160+80MHz PPDU consists of the tone plans of three 80MHz segments. The EHT tone plan for a 320/160+160MHz PPDU consists of the tone plans of four 80MHz segments. The tone plan for each of the 80MHz segments is identical to an EHT 80MHz tone plan". How about "For >= 160 MHz PPDU, the tone plan for each of the 80MHz segments is identical to an EHT 80MHz tone plan"?

2. Please remove 240 MHz PPDU definitons

Specific comments on sub-clause 34.3.2.2.2:

Page 2:

"EHT PHY data subcarrier frequency spacing is identical to that of HE PHY subcarrier frequency" - here, "data" needs to be omitted since it applies to all sub-carriers.
"The EHT tone plan and RU locations for an 80MHz PPDU is given in Figure XXX below." - the tone plan is not completely captured by the figure (e.g., null subcarriers in between), though the figure itself is accurate. Need a table here similar to Table 27-9 that explicitly spells out the tone plan.
"The EHT tone plan for a 240/160+80MHz PPDU consists of the tone plans of three 80MHz segments" – as in comment 2 above.
"The tone plan for each of the 80MHz segments is identical to an EHT 80MHz tone plan." - suggest to replace "an EHT 80MHz tone plan" with "the tone plan of an EHT 80MHz PPDU"
"For a non-OFDMA 320/160+160MHz EHT PPDU, 12 and 11 null tones are placed at the left and right edges, respectively, in each 160MHz segment." This is redundant, since each 80M-segment follows the 80M tone plan already. Better to remove this sentence, as it may be misinterpreted as the placement of an additional set of null tones (on top of 80M tone plan)

Page 3:

"For a non-OFDMA EHT PPDU: The tone plan of an 80/160/80+80MHz EHT PPDU is identical to that of HE PHY defined in Clause 27 (High Efficiency (HE) PHY specification), with the exception of pilot locations. ". Must also mention "and with the exception of punctured 80M segments". Would suggest to explicitly state the tone plan for unpunctured 80M segments, to avoid confusion.
"The tone plan of a 320/160+160MHz EHT PPDU is based on duplicated EHT 160MHz tone plan" - this is redundant since it is already stated that higher BW PPDU shall reuse 80M PPDU tone plan on each 80M segment. Suggest to remove (or unify with previous statement on per-80 segment tone plan) to avoid confusion.
"Each non-punctured 80MHz segment in a 160/240/320MHz PPDU uses a 996-tone RU" - there is no 240M PPDU per the SFD. Should be removed.
"Any 80MHz segment in an EHT 80/160/240/320MHz PPDU, if it is punctured or used for OFDMA, uses the tone plan shown in Figure XXX." Suggest replacing reference to figure with reference to a table that lists all RUs and tone indices explictly (Similar to table 27-9). Also, no 240M PPDU - should be removed

Lastly, too much text is deleted, propose to have a clean new version.

Thanks,

Ron

From: Eunsung Park [mailto:esung.park@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 4:50 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] draft text for three subclauses in "34.3.2 Subcarrier and resource allocation"

Hi Yan,

I’m attaching the proposed the draft text for Wideband and noncontiguous spectrum utilization.

If you have any comments please let me know.

Best regards,

Eunsung

From: Yan Xin [mailto:Yan.Xin@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 11:37 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] draft text for three subclauses in "34.3.2 Subcarrier and resource allocation"

Hello Eunsung:

Thank you for you would volunteer to draft the text in subclause “34.3.2.2.1 Wideband channelization for PPDU transmission”.

Please find the attached template.

@TTTs: Eunsung Park, Wook Bong Lee, Bin Tian, Bo Sun, Dandan Liang, Youhan Kim, Shimi Shilo

Please let me know if you would contribute draft text to other two topics.

(1) Support for large bandwidth

(2) Subcarriers and resource allocation for single RU

Regards,

Yan.

From: Yan Xin
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 11:18 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] draft text for three subclauses in "34.3.2 Subcarrier and resource allocation"

Hello TTTs and all:

TTTs: Eunsung Park, Wook Bong Lee, Bin Tian, Bo Sun, Dandan Liang, Youhan Kim, Shimi Shilo,

This email is regarding the preparation of draft text for the following three subclauses on “Subcarriers and resource allocation”

(1) Wideband and noncontiguous spectrum utilization

(2) Support for large bandwidth

(3) Subcarriers and resource allocation for single RU

As the POC for draft text of these subclauses, I would encourage TTTs to contribute to the draft text for those subclauses.

(1) I suggest to break up “34.3.2.2 Wideband and noncontiguous spectrum utilization” to two as following. As shown in 20/0566r50, the related motions are: 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 33, 34, 35, 111 (#SP0611-01), 112 (#SP42), 118, 119 (#SP115), 119 (#SP116), 119 (SP#117).

34.3.2 Subcarriers and resource allocation

34.3.2.1 General

34.3.2.2 Wideband and noncontiguous spectrum utilization

34.3.2.2.1 Wideband channelization for PPDU transmission (TTT needed)

34.3.2.2.2 Subcarriers and resource allocation for wideband (TTT needed)

(2) Two motions related to this subclause include: 115 (#SP75), 112 (#SP48) (note: it is a R2 feature on A-PPDU)

34.3.2.3 Support for large bandwidth (TTT needed)

(3) One motion related to this subclause is: 112, #SP13

34.3.2.4 Subcarriers and resource allocation for single RU (TTT needed)

I will forward the separate Word templates for drafting the text after receiving TTTs’ feedback.

Thank you,

Yan.

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