Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

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

Hi Ron,

About:

I assume only one punctured subband will be signaled in the beacon and will be limited to the non-ofdma puncturing patterns we defined in the spec (other cases STA doesn’t implement).

I see 455r2 uses a 16-bit bitmap to indicate the (static) puncturing pattern. I don’t believe anyone really expects to use the full flexibility of this 16 bit indication, but we should probably be more explicit about the restrictions you mention when it comes to static puncturing.

Regards,

Sigurd

From: Ron Porat <000009a0da80e877-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 10:47 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

This email was sent from outside of MaxLinear.

Hi Wook bong,

That rule is an unnecessary constraint/requirement. My thinking based on the discussion is that we need a two-fold solution which seems natural based on 11ax design and puncturing mask we adopted in 11be:

Use option 3 for unused tone error EVM at a fixed level of max(epsilon-2,-38) in the hole of a non-contiguous MRU.

In addition to #1 – non-AP STA needs to meet the punctured mask we already defined in 36.3.19.1.2 for any RU/MRU (this one has nothing to do with non-contiguous MRU) based on static puncturing, meaning applied only for the subband signaled in the beacon (that’s the only subband the STA knows is punctured)

I assume only one punctured subband will be signaled in the beacon and will be limited to the non-ofdma puncturing patterns we defined in the spec (other cases STA doesn’t implement).

Thanks,

Ron

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:22 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi Jianhan,

That is only if we don’t allow non-AP STA to transmit higher than MCS 7 power level.

If that is what members wants, then we need to make a rule like

E.g. when allocates non-contiguous MRU, AP STA shall assume an non-AP STA uses transmit power less than the maximum power of EHT-MCS 7.

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

From: Jianhan Liu [mailto:Jianhan.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:44 PM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

-29 to -38 dB is always more tighter than -20 to -25dBr (puncture mask), right?

Then puncture mask becomes less useful then if puncture cases cannot be always identified.

Thanks,

Jianhan

From: Wook Bong Lee [mailto:wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:25 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi Jianhan and Ron,

Punctured mask: -20 to -25dBr

Max(EVM – 2,-38): -15 to -38 dB depending on modulation level

If we only allow power level less than or equal to the maximum power of EHT-MCS 7, then

Max(EVM – 2,-38): -29 to -38 dB.

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

From: Jianhan Liu [mailto:Jianhan.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:02 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi All,

For epsilon-2 in option 3, in which cases that the unused tone mask is tighter than punctured mask?

Thanks,

Jianhan

From: Ron Porat [mailto:000009a0da80e877-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:42 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi Wook bong, Xiaogang,

For the regular unused tone mask we could go with epsilon-2 in option 3 to make it tighter and that should be sufficient to expand the 11ax style requirement to non-contiguous MRU.

If on top of that we want to add some new requirement based on section 36.3.19.1.2 we need to be a bit more careful and discuss it separately. Since the STA is not in control (unlike SU) and doesn’t know if and where there is a disallowed subchannel we may want to limit it to only a subchannel conveyed in the beacon (static puncturing) and further decouple the requirement from the M-RU size (e.g. case 3 therein).

Thanks,

Ron

From: Chen, Xiaogang C <xiaogang.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:57 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Thanks Wook Bong to initiate this.

One thing to consider is regulatory may not differentiate puncture and unallocated. They only differentiate adjacent and non-adjacent subchannel.

Given that, regarding the unused EVM of the frequency portion of the “hole”, fully rely on e or e-2 may violate the regulatory requirement (for low MCS) if the interpretation of the unused “hole” is just “non-adjacent”. So IMO puncture mask is safer for the “hole”.

BRs,

Xiaogang.

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 4:47 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

Hi all,

Thanks for discussion today.

Please give your opinion on

11-21/639r1, Proposed Resolution of Remaining TBDs in 36.3.19.4.4 and 36.3.20.3, Wook Bong Lee (Samsung)

Please focus on change #3. PHY group accepted change #1, 2 and 4 today.

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

From:"Calibri&q

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