Thank you, Edward.
On Jul 15, 2026, at 2:44 PM, Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Wook Bong,
Thanks for your review.
For the proposed UHRP4.5, P4.6, P4.7. P4.12, P4.13, and P4.14, I will update the status as:
UHRP4.5
|
Transmission of a UHR TB PPDU using 1× UHR-LTF and 1.6 μs GI
|
38.1.1, 38.3.15
|
CFUHR AND CFSTaofAP: M
|
Yes o No
o N/A o
|
UHRP4.6
|
Transmission of a UHR TB PPDU using 2× UHR-LTF and 1.6 μs GI
|
38.1.1, 38.3.15
|
CFUHR AND CFSTaofAP: M
|
Yes o No
o N/A o
|
UHRP4.7
|
Transmission of a UHR TB PPDU using 4× UHR-LTF and 3.2 μs GI
|
38.1.1, 38.3.15
|
CFUHR AND CFSTaofAP: M
|
Yes o No
o N/A o
|
UHRP4.12
|
Reception of a UHR TB PPDU using 1× UHR-LTF and 1.6 μs GI
|
38.1.1, 38.3.15
|
CFUHR AND CFAP: M
|
Yes o No
o N/A o
|
UHRP4.13
|
Reception of a UHR TB PPDU using 2× UHR-LTF and 1.6 μs GI
|
38.1.1, 38.3.15
|
CFUHR AND CFAP: M
|
Yes o No
o N/A o
|
UHRP4.14
|
Reception of a UHR TB PPDU using 4× UHR-LTF and 3.2 μs GI
|
38.1.1, 38.3.15
|
CFUHR AND CFAP: M
|
Yes o No
o N/A o
|
re: DRU and MCS 15, I also received a similar offline comment, and I will convert the status of all related entries from M to O.
Regards, Edward Hi Edward,
Thanks for your effort. For following UHR TB PPDU transmission (UHR-LTF) should be only for non-AP STA. UHRP4.5 | Transmission of a UHR TB PPDU using 1× UHR-LTF and 1.6 μs GI | 38.1.1, 38.3.15 | CFUHR: M | Yes o No o N/A o | UHRP4.6 | Transmission of a UHR TB PPDU using 2× UHR-LTF and 1.6 μs GI | 38.1.1, 38.3.15 | CFUHR: M | Yes o No o N/A o |
UHRP4.7 | Transmission of a UHR TB PPDU using 4× UHR-LTF and 3.2 μs GI | 38.1.1, 38.3.15 | CFUHR: M | Yes o No o N/A o |
Likewise, reception of TB PPDU (UHR-LTF) should be only for AP STA. UHRP4.12 | Reception of a UHR TB PPDU using 1× UHR-LTF and 1.6 μs GI | 38.1.1, 38.3.15 | CFUHR: M | Yes o No o N/A o | UHRP4.13 | Reception of a UHR TB PPDU using 2× UHR-LTF and 1.6 μs GI | 38.1.1, 38.3.15 | CFUHR: M | Yes o No o N/A o | UHRP4.14 | Reception of a UHR TB PPDU using 4× UHR-LTF and 3.2 μs GI | 38.1.1, 38.3.15 | CFUHR: M | Yes o No o N/A o |
All DRU should be optional. MCS15 should be optional.
Best regards, Wook Bong Lee
Ack. Confirm addition for SP on Wed PM2 Joint. All, please review and let Edward know of any feedback by then.
Regards,
AA Dear Alfred and all,
Edward Dear Tomo-san,
Thank you. I agree with you that we do not need this redundancy.
Regards,
Edward
On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 5:16 PM <tomoko.adachi.b99@mail.toshiba> wrote:
Hi Edward,
Thank you for this.
Do we need to repeat “CFUHR” where there is for example “CFUHR5G”? Please see such as items CFUHR80 and UHRP2.33.
From my understanding, “CFUHR5G” is “CFUHR”, so “CFUHR AND” part is redundant.
Best regards, tomo
Proposed resolution for Annex B, PICS, is posted:
Of note is that it is an 18-page contribution. Appreciate your time and effort to review and please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions.
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
-- Alfred Asterjadhi, PhD IEEE802.11 TGbe/TGbn Chair,
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Cell #: +1 858 263 9445 Office #: +1 858 658 5302
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
|