Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Revision 2 of the proposed resolution for Annex B, PICS, posted

["Yan (PACE) Zhang" <00002dbff69c3987-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Edward,

   Thank you for preparing the document. 

. 

  There are missing PHY support on DSO operations. The below two items only has 80 MHz support for 80 MHz operating BW non-AP STA

URHP2.12	Reception of a 160 MHz UHR MU PPDU in the 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands if the non-AP UHR STA is operating with 80 MHz channel width and supports DSO	38.1.1	CFUHR AND CFSTAofAP:  O	Yes o No o N/A o
UHRP2.13	Reception of a 320 MHz UHR MU PPDU in the 6 GHz bands where the assigned RU or MRU is in the secondary 80 MHz channel if the non-AP UHR STA is operating with 80 MHz channel width and supports DSO	38.1.1	CFUHR AND CFSTAofAP:  O	Yes o No o N/A o

I cannot find support on secondary 160 MHz DSO subband support if the non-AP UHR STA is operating with 160 MHz channel width and supports DSO.

Suggestion: You can combine both 80 and 160 MHz operating non-AP DSO support in UHRP2.13, also change in the secondary 80 MHz channel to "Reception of a 320 MHz UHR MU PPDU in the the 6 GHz bands where the assigned RU or MRU is in the secondary channel within DSO Subbands if the non-AP UHR STA is operating with 80 MHz or 160 MHz channel width and supports DSO”.

Same changes apply to UL TB transmission support for DSO STAs. "“Transmission of a 320 MHz UHR TB PPDU in the 6 GHz bands where the assigned RU or MRU is in the secondary channel within DSO Subbands if the non-AP UHR STA is operating with 80 MHz or 160 MHz channel width and supports DSO”

UHRP2.24

Transmission of a 320 MHz UHR TB PPDU in the 6 GHz bands where the assigned RU or MRU is in the secondary 80 MHz channel if the non-AP UHR STA is operating with 80 MHz channel width and supports DSO

38.1.1

CFUHR AND CFSTAofAP:  O

Yes o No o N/A o

Also, DRU is supported in UL TB, please add DRU support in DSO support as well.

Thanks

Yan

On Jul 13, 2026, at 5:51 PM, Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Alfred and all,

I posted revision 2 that addressed comments I received from Rony and Laurent:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1283-02-00bn-lb291-comment-resolution-for-pics.docx

Regards,

Edward

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 5:30 PM Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Tomo-san,

Thank you.  I agree with you that we do not need this redundancy.

I just uploaded revision 1 that addressed comments from you, Binita, Massinissa, and Xiangxin:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1283-01-00bn-lb291-comment-resolution-for-pics.docx

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

 

From: Edward Au <edward.ks.au@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 6:51 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Proposed resolution for Annex B, PICS, posted

 

Dear Alfred and all,

 

Proposed resolution for Annex B, PICS, is posted:

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/documents?is_dcn=1283&is_group=00bn&is_year=2026

 

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.

 

Regards,

Edward

 

 

---

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

---

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