For the Channel Switch Wrapper element, I still don’t think it is really needed. The simple way is to let non-AP STA to receive a new Beacon frame as mentioned in 691r4. It is late
to add additional signal given this current stage. For TPE, Initially, I chose option 1 by using reserved bits, let me think about which option should be selected given that there are multiple options.
Regards
Guogang Huang
发件人: huangguogang
发送时间: 2023年6月7日
9:34
收件人: 'Yanjun Sun' <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: 答复: Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1
Hi Yanjun,
Could you defer this CR document and arrange a call to have more discussion on it? Please let me know which time is good for you.
Regards
Guogang Huang
发件人: Yanjun Sun [mailto:yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2023年6月6日
1:30
收件人:
STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1
Hi Alfred and all,
I’ve updated the CR to
23/728r2 based on two constructive feedbacks received offline:
-
Replaced Bandwidth Indication element with Channel Switch Wrapper element to based on CID 16666, as an MLD need transmit power limits and puncturing pattern on the new channel, both of
which are already provided by the Channel Switch Wrapper element
-
Revised text in the resolution for CID 17998 to use
shall instead of may because EHT Operation element and Channel Switch Wrapper element are the only two possible elements for an EHT AP to indicate puncturing pattern update
If there is no other comment/concern on the CR, I’d like to queue the SP for this CR in the joint queue.
Thanks
Yanjun
From: Yanjun Sun <yanjuns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 8:34 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Discussion on TPE with EIRP for CID 18183 in 23/728r1
Hi folks,
During today’s joint session, we’ve recapped the issue, candidate solutions and prior spec text in
23/728r1 as in the highlighted summary below.
It’ll help the group make progress if you could share any suggestion on alternative solutions or any change to the proposed spec text in the CR.
Discussion for CID 18183:
Issue: for TPE indicating an EIRP, there is no normative text on how to interpret reserved values for the Maximum Transmit Power Count subfield,
so the behavior of a legacy STA is unknown if any value between 4-7 is used
To avoid interop issues with the legacy STAs deployed in the field, the group has discussed two options in the past:
-
Option1: Append a new subfield to the existing TPE, which is an extensible element
-
Pros: lowest overhead (1 octet only), proposed text in
22/1482r7
has been discussed
-
Option2: Carry an EHT TPE together with the legacy TPE in a Beacon frame
-
Pros: more flexibility for future expansion, not getting enough support due to larger overhead
-
Option3: any other proposal?
The text in 728r1 is copied from
22/1482r7
based on option1.
Thanks
Yanjun
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