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

[STDS-802-11-TGM] CID 305 - Changing RX sensitivity requirement from "shall" to "should"



--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Hello.

 

This is a courtesy notice that TGmf has marked the following CID 305 as Rejected, Ready for Motion with the following reason.

REJECTED

The proposed change would allow cases where, for example, an EHT STA meets the RX sensitivity requirement of -82 dBm for 20 MHz HE SU MCS0, but not meet the same requirement for 20 MHz EHT SU MCS0. So, there is value in specifying that the requirements apply to the new PPDU formats.

Please respond back to this thread if you have concerns/feedback.

 

CID

Clause

Page.Line

Comment

Proposed Change

305

36.3.21.2

5634.07

"The PER shall be less than 10% for a PSDU with the rate-dependent input levels listed in Table 36-67 (Receiver minimum input level sensitivity)." (With PSDU octet lengths as sgiven by the following sentence.) With every new amndment comes a new list, of ever-goriwng size, of these minimum receiver sensitivity numbers. What purpose do these requirements fill? It's natural to assume that they are an effort to make sure that devices perform at least at some basic level in all modes. But they don't really do that, at least not directly, because there is no requirement to perform at any level at all for any PSDU length other than one specific one per MCS. Instead, the requirement seems to set an indirect minimum performance level for all PSDU lengths, since if the device's MCS reception works at the stated single PSDU length, that provides evidence that the consituent blocks--BCC decoder, LDPC decoder, etc.--are correctly implemented. This is indeed useful. However--we have already ensured all that, by specifying corresponding minmum receiver sensitivity numbers in previous clauses. What * new * information is conveyed by a device's result corresponding to any entry on this table? Compared, in particular, to HT? It's all very marginal, isn't it? As part of 11mf, we should start the process of pruning out surplus requiremements and simplifying the standard. As with other obsolete text, it is hard to do this all in one go. A useful first step would be to make the numbers in this table recommended rather than mandatory. Note that the numbers in the corresponding tables in earlier clauses would remain mandatory.

Change "shall" to "should".

 


Regards,
Youhan

 

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