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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [Suspected Marketing Mail] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] On preamble puncturing RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM (+ note to MAC)



Hi Yanjun,

 

Could you explain more on the following bullet? I’m not clear the context of it.

 

 

n) Transmit a punctured non-HT duplicate PPDU if all of the 20 MHz subchannels that are not punctured were idle during an interval of PIFS immediately preceding the start of the TXOP.

 

 

Thanks

 

Best Regards

 

Jay Yang

 

From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2021
428 9:20
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Suspected Marketing Mail] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] On preamble puncturing RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM (+ note to MAC)

 

Hi Wook Bong and Xiaogang and all,

 

Thank you for the prompt inputs.

 

I’ve adopted the suggested changes and provided clarifications in the attached. The changes to spec text are tagged with “R5” in the comments.

 

Please let me know if you have additional comments/suggestions. As we may get other comments tomorrow during the call, I’ll upload the attached during/after the call.

 

Thank you,

Yanjun

 

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:29 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] On preamble puncturing RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM (+ note to MAC)

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Hi Yanjun,

 

I think we need a more discussion for this in joint meeting.

 

BTW, we don’t have INACTIVE_SUBCHANNELS in an EHT NDP Announcement frame.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

From: Chen, Xiaogang C [mailto:xiaogang.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:18 AM
To: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] On preamble puncturing RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM (+ note to MAC)

 

Hi Yanjun,

I added several comments as attached. Thanks.

 

BRs,

Xiaogang.

 

From: Wook Bong Lee <wookbong.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:16 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] On preamble puncturing RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM (+ note to MAC)

 

Hi Yanjun,

 

Thanks for your effort.

I have one question.

If the EHT AP has included the Disabled Subchannel Bitmap field in the EHT Operation element, an EHT STA may use EHT MU PPDU preamble puncturing modes as defined in 36.3.12.11 (Preamble punctured EHT PPDU) or EHT TB PPDU for non-contiguous bandwidth transmission with additional 20MHz subchannel(s) punctured on top the punctured subchannels indicated in the Disabled Subchannel Bitmap field in the EHT Operation element.   

 

Can you clarify EHT TB PPDU part?

What is non-contiguous bandwidth transmission? I think you may refer noncontiguous MRU transmission. (Please refer 11-21/639r4)

What is additional 20MHz subchannel punctured?

It is not super clear to me.

Please clarify.

 

Best regards,

Wook Bong Lee

 

 

From: Yanjun Sun [mailto:yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:06 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] On preamble puncturing RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM (+ note to MAC)

 

Hi folks,

 

Based on offline comments, I’ve uploaded 21/0455r4 to clarify that MU transmission is allowed to puncture additional subchannels as in legacy HE, and to align the Table 36-1 entries with those from 21/0635r3 that passed SP in PHY today. The new spec text changes are tagged by “R4” in the comments.

 

Please let me know if you have additional comments/suggestions.

 

 

Thank you,

Yanjun

 

From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:10 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] On preamble puncturing RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM (+ note to MAC)

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Hi Ron, Sigurd and all, I’ve tried to include your comments on page 8 in 21/0455r3, tagged with R3 in the comments. Please let me know if the proposed change look reasonable to you.

 

Hi Alfred, as there is some aspect related to PHY in this CR, is it possible to move 21/0455r3 from the MAC queue to the join queue?

 

Thank you,

Yanjun

 

From: Ron Porat <000009a0da80e877-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 11:46 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM (+ note to MAC)

 

Hi Sigurd, Hi MAC folks,

 

Agreed, 16 bits is fine for full flexibility but as we know in the PHY the rel. 1 STA is limited to SU transmissions with just one hole as defined specifically in the spec so some restrictions are needed indeed here.

 

Thanks,

Ron

 

 

 

From: Sigurd Schelstraete <sschelstraete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 11:17 AM
To: Ron Porat <ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] PDT - Unused tone EVM

 

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:

 

  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. 

 

  1. 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


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