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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBP] PDT: Transmit and receiver specification TBDs.



Hi TTT, 

Please see the latest revision, here:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1542-02-00bp-pdt-transmit-and-receiver-specification-tbds.docx

Cheers, 
Nelson.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 7:46 PM Nelson Costa <nelson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Alice.  I agree, and I'll make that change now.

Cheers, 
Nelson.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 7:39 PM Alice Jialing Li Chen <jialing.li.phd2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Nelson,

For the Rx minimum sensitivity for UL bistatic backscatter transmission, I think the values are way too tight. For the following reasons, I think we should further relax the requirements, since the requirements are for the industry to meet, not just for an optimal implementation.
  • In our past simulations in 11-26/1355r0, only NF=5dB, no CFO, no SFO, very sharp digital filters (10MHz for 250kbps and 1Mbps, and 20MHz for 4Mbps). When more practical impairment comes into the picture, and looser filters are used, performance degrades substantially, especially when OOBE is dominant.
  • The values you picked are 10dB (margin) above the best achievable curve. Performance significantly varies with different OFDM sequences to generate the carrier waveform and implementation details (e.g., with vs without flipping of sequence). The difference could be over 10dB. As the OFDM sequence is implementation specific, with recommendations given in spec appendix, there should be room for suboptimal OFDM sequences as well. 

I think we should relax at least another 10dB. In addition, the gap between 250kbps and 1Mbps should be increased from 3dB (too small) to 6dB. The gap between 1Mbps and 4Mbps being 25dB is fine.

Regards,
Alice


On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 12:17 PM Nelson Costa <nelson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all, 

Here is the latest version of the Transmit and Receiver specification TBDs.  I've tried to address all comments.  


Cheers, 
Nelson.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 6:32 PM Amichai Sanderovich <amichai.sanderovich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Nelson,

Some comments on 1542:
  1. We suggest to change the tables values as follows:

Table 40-11—DL receiver minimum input level sensitivity for non-backscatter and bistatic backscatter active TX receivers 

AMP-DL-MCS index

Modulation

Data Rate (kb/s)

Minimum sensitivity (dBm)[N1] 

0

AMP MC-OOK

250

TBD

-81

-35

1

AMP MC-OOK

1000

TBD

-78

-25



Table 40-14—UL receiver minimum input level sensitivity for active Tx

AMP-UL-AT-MCS index

AMP-UL-AT-MCS index

[N1] 

Modulation

Rate (R)

Data Rate (kb/s)

Minimum sensitivity (dBm)[N2] 

0

AMP MC-OOK

1/2

250

TBD

-94

-84

1

AMP MC-OOK

1/2

1000

TBD

-88

-78

2

AMP MC-OOK

1

4000

TBD

-78

-68





  1. Further we suggest to remove the maximum sensitivity requirement for the active TX DL receivers:

For non-backscatter and bistatic backscatter, the receiver shall provide a maximum PER of 10% at a PSDU length of 20 octets for all MCSs, for a maximum input level of -20 dBm in the 2.4 GHz band, measured at each physical antenna port for any baseband AMP modulation.

Best Regards,

Amichai




From: Nelson Costa <nelson@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 11 September 2026 at 22:25
To: STDS-802-11-TGBP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBP] PDT: Transmit and receiver specification TBDs.


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBP list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBP&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBP list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBP&A=1