Hi Yurong,
Thanks for preparing the document.
I have two questions:
- CSI overhearing is not a standardized way (I believe that in order to standardize
CSI overhearing, the standard should touch a lot of sections. I guess CSI overhearing is just implementation based). Is it still okay to define PHY SAP for this unstandardized CSI overhearing?
- If we were to define PHY SAP, (As you-wei also mentioned), how the responding
AP would know the PHY-TRIGGER.request (TRIGVECTOR)? This is something generated locally at the initiating AP side.
You-wei, a small comment on “11bi related”: CSI protection is about 11bi related. CSI overhearing is more of a general topic which discusses
how CSI overhearing works.
Thanks!
BR,
Okan
From: You-Wei Chen <ywchen77115@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 7:45 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] PDT for CIDs on OBSS CSI overhearing in Co-BF Sounding - please review
|
|
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
|
Thank you for the effort. I thought these are more related to 11bi before.
Do we need to define an OBSS EHT TB? Also, I do not fully understand the resolution of CID#982 and 983. How to use PHY-TRIGGER.request to config the responding AP RX?
For CID#3573, do we need to have a frame to solicit the channel state information? Since the overhead for CBF already huge, I do not think additional frame exchange can be a good direction.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
|