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

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



Got it.

Anyway, that can be further discussed under the spectral mask.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

From: Ron Porat [mailto:ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 12:54 PM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

 

Hi Wook bong

 

For the second one, can non-AP assume no need to further meet the puncturing mask when there is no puncturing information in Beacon?

 

Yes, that’s my understanding.

 

I suppose we can leave it to the (smart) AP to manage emissions in that case but I’m not sure what if anything we need to say in the spec. we can discuss it more.

 

 

Thanks,

Ron

 

 

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 12:37 PM
To: Ron Porat <ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

 

Hi Ron,

 

Thanks.

Sure for #1. I will update the draft.

 

For the second one, can non-AP assume no need to further meet the puncturing mask when there is no puncturing information in Beacon?

In other words, AP will ensure it, e.g. by assigning MCS 7 or higher?

Can we capture that kind of requirement for AP?

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Ron Porat [mailto:ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 11:43 AM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

 

Hi Wook bong,

 

In regards to #1 let’s hear on the call what people prefer and go with that.

 

In regards to #2 the AP may do any puncturing it wants based on the spec but what we are defining is what the non-AP STA will be required to meet when transmitting a TB PPDU.

 

Thanks,

Ron

 

 

 

 

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 11:10 AM
To: Ron Porat <ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

 

Hi Ron,

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Regarding number 1, I think epsilon – 2 seems too tight. Original proposal was epsilon + 1, allowing leakage from both side. As others commented, we can live with epsilon, i.e. EVM.

In this case, the non-contiguous one becomes same as larger block requirement, e.g. 2x996+484 requirement is same as 3x996.

 

Regarding number 2, I am fine with static one. In this case, we don’t allow AP to perform dynamic puncturing for TB PPDU?

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Ron Porat [mailto:ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 10:47 AM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

 

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:

 

1.       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. 

 

2.       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: Wook Bong Lee
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 8:36 AM
To: 'asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx' <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Sigurd Schelstraete <sschelstraete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tianyu Wu <tianyu@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Announcement: Motions for TGbe on Wednesday 14th of April 2021

 

Hi Alfred, Sigurd and Tianyu,

 

Can you please add following in the PHY queue?

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

 

I will upload today or next Monday morning.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Alfred Asterjadhi [mailto:asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 7:06 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Announcement: Motions for TGbe on Wednesday 14th of April 2021

 

Hello all,

This is an advanced notification that TGbe will run motions during the Joint teleconference scheduled on April 14th 2021.

Please refer to the document linked below for a preliminary list of all the motions (starting from slide 33)  that will be run during the conference call:


Please review the documents included in Motions 166-172, and reply to this e-mail if you would like to identify any of these documents or any particular CID as items that need further discussion. 

The deadline for sending these e-mails is April 13th  2021 @10:00am ET.


A list of these requested items will be queued for discussion and run as a separate motion (Motions >172) during the same Joint conference call.
Contributions that have not received a request for further discussions will be part of their respective cumulative motion and will be run at the same Joint conference call. 
For more information please refer to the subclause "Guideline-Building Consensus and Populating the TGbe SFD" in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0984-04-00be-tgbe-teleconference-guidelines.docx.


If you have any comments and/or questions please let me know.
Best Regards,
Alfred


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


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