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

[STDS-802-11-TGBE] 答复: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [EXT] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Initial Revision of Agendas for Nov'22-Jan'23 Telcos Uploaded-CORRECTED LINK



Hello Liwen

 

I don’t think “at least” in the following sentence is correct. It should be “each”. For example, there are two links, link 1 supports 2 ss, and link 2 supports 8 ss. Are you saying the value indicated by EMLMR Supported MCS And NSS Set subfield could be 3 or 4?  What EMLMR operation on link 2 in this case?

 

An non-AP MLD may announce the different Tx Nss and Rx Nss in the EMLMR Supported MCS And NSS Set subfield in the different EML operating mode negotiation where the Tx Nss and Rx Nss in the EMLMR Supported MCS And NSS Set subfield shall be more than the Tx Nss and Rx Nss of at least one EMLMR link as defined in 35.15(PPDU format, BW, MCS, NSS, and DCM selection rules), 35.9 (Operating mode indication), and 26.9 (Operating mode indication).

 

Best wishes

Ming Gan

发件人: Vishnu Ratnam [mailto:vishnu.r@xxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 20221221 5:37
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [EXT] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Initial Revision of Agendas for Nov'22-Jan'23 Telcos Uploaded-CORRECTED LINK

 

Thanks Liwen, I am fine with this text. Although I am still a bit curious what benefit specifying this provides. Maybe we can discuss during your presentation.

 

Regards,

Vishnu

 

From: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 3:31 PM
To: Vishnu Vardhan Ratnam <vishnu.r@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [EXT] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Initial Revision of Agendas for Nov'22-Jan'23 Telcos Uploaded-CORRECTED LINK

 

Hi Vishnu,

 

How about the following text:

 

An non-AP MLD may announce the different Tx Nss and Rx Nss in the EMLMR Supported MCS And NSS Set subfield in the different EML operating mode negotiation where the Tx Nss and Rx Nss in the EMLMR Supported MCS And NSS Set subfield shall be more than the Tx Nss and Rx Nss of at least one EMLMR link as defined in 35.15(PPDU format, BW, MCS, NSS, and DCM selection rules), 35.9 (Operating mode indication), and 26.9 (Operating mode indication).

 

 

I assume the red text address your concern and is still in line with the EMLMR’s radio switch operation.

 

Best Regards,

Liwen

 

From: Vishnu Ratnam <vishnu.r@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 12:58 PM
To: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [EXT] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Initial Revision of Agendas for Nov'22-Jan'23 Telcos Uploaded-CORRECTED LINK

 

Thanks Liwen.

 

My point is that it is possible that the max MCS and NSS supported by EMLMR mode is lower than the MCS and NSS supported on some of the EMLMR links (even after applying 26.9 or 35.9). One example is the one I provided. I agree that the example is unorthodox, but my point is such implementations should not be precluded.

More generally, I don’t see the value in adding the restriction that “maximal Tx Nss and maximal Rx Nss in the EMLMR Supported MCS And NSS Set subfield shall be no less than the Tx Nss and Rx Nss of each EMLMR link”. Can you explain why this restriction is required?

 

Regards,

Vishnu

 

From: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 2:39 PM
To: Vishnu Vardhan Ratnam <vishnu.r@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [EXT] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Initial Revision of Agendas for Nov'22-Jan'23 Telcos Uploaded-CORRECTED LINK

 

Hi Vishnu,

 

With the added text, the Tx/Rx Nss of the EMLMR mode can be smaller than the maximal Tx/Rx Nss of a link, e.g. when the operating Tx/Rx Nss of each link through the operation of 26.9 or 35.9 is smaller than the maximal Tx/Rx Nss of the related link. Your example is trick since the Nss of link 2 in EMLMR mode is less than the Nss of link2 in non-EMLMR mode.

 

Best Regards,

Liwen

 

From: Vishnu Ratnam <vishnu.r@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 11:55 AM
To: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [EXT] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Initial Revision of Agendas for Nov'22-Jan'23 Telcos Uploaded-CORRECTED LINK

 

Hi Liwen,

 

I have a concern regarding the following sentence: “where the maximal Tx Nss and maximal Rx Nss in the EMLMR Supported MCS And NSS Set subfield shall be no less than the Tx Nss and Rx Nss of each EMLMR link as defined in 35.15(PPDU format, BW, MCS, NSS, and DCM selection rules), 35.9 (Operating mode indication), and 26.9 (Operating mode indication).(#10043)

It is possible that the EMLMR Supported MCS and NSS Set is lower than the largest of the MCS and NSS supported on each of the EMLMR links. Consider below example:

-          Say STA operating on link 1 supports 1 SS and STA operating on link 2 supports 4 SS in non-EMLMR mode. When switched to EMLMR mode, out of the 4 SS on link 2 only 2 SS are capable of being shared with link 1. Then the EMLMR mode supported NSS will be 3 (since link 1 creates the limitation) which is lower than 4.

More generally, this kind of restriction is unnecessary and it should be up to implementation to determine what MCS and NSS to support in EMLMR mode. The spec shouldn’t be dictating this.

 

Regards,

Vishnu

 

From: Liwen Chu <liwen.chu@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 1:08 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] [EXT] Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Initial Revision of Agendas for Nov'22-Jan'23 Telcos Uploaded-CORRECTED LINK

 

Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

 

Hi Alfred,

 

Please add the following contribution to the agenda

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-1504-00-00be-11be-d2-0-comment-resolution-subclause-35-3-18-part-2.docx

 

 

Best Regards,

Liwen

 

 

 

 

From: Alfred Asterjadhi <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent:
יום ב 28 נובמבר 2022 23:17
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Initial Revision of Agendas for Nov'22-Jan'23 Telcos Uploaded-CORRECTED LINK

 

With Corrected Link:

 

 

Regards,

 

AA

 

 

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:15 PM Alfred Asterjadhi <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello all,

 

I uploaded the telco agendas for the Nov'22-Jan'23 time period. 

 

Please take a look at the submissions list and let me know if any of the contributions are missing from the queues. 

 

In addition please take a look at the contributions that are listed for the first and second MAC (this weeks) teleconferences, and let me know if there is a need for any updates.

 

Last but not least, please make sure that if you have a submission with a request for SP then that submission appears in the queue as pending SP. This way it does not end up in the quarantine queues/docs. Updated revision of docs containing CIDs in quarantine will be uploaded by end of this week.

 

Best Regards,


Alfred

 

--

Alfred Asterjadhi, PhD

IEEE802.11 TGbe Chair,

Qualcomm Technologies Inc.

Cell #:    +1 858 263 9445

Office #: +1 858 658 5302


 

--

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


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