| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Thanks, Mark.
10.12.6 does not talk about, and thus does not necessarily prohibit, the use of S-MPDU in the other flavor of PPDUs (e.g., NGV).
So, if we simply delete "in a VHT, HE or EHT PPDU", I could imagine someone in the future submitting a comment saying that Table 9-768 says look at 10.12.6, but 10.12.6 does not talk about, say, NGV PPDU so he/she cannot understand how to use the EOF/Tag field
for NGV PPDU. (Sorry if NGV was not the best example, but I hope the example is clear.)
I sympathize with your concern about future spec rot but that's a future problem, while simply deleting "in a VHT, HE or EHT PPDU" seems to be introducing a current problem.
Anyway, this is MAC section for which I am not an expert, so I am open to be further educated by you and the group.
Regards,
Youhan
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2026 2:45 PM To: Youhan Kim <youhank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGM] TGmf teleconference reminder - 16 Oct 2026 WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hello Youhan,
Yes, I think non-HT PPDUs are irrelevant.
I see your point re the various other flavours of PPDU.
However, since the cross-reference is specifically to "as described in 10.12.6 (A-MPDU padding for VHT, HE, EHT or S1G PPDU(#11be))" I think the current proposal in the database to:
Delete "in a (#11be)VHT, HE or EHT PPDU" at the cited location.
is OK, because we'll end up with:
Set to 1 in an A-MPDU subframe that has 0 in the MPDU Length field and that is used to pad the A-MPDU as described in 10.12.6 (A-MPDU padding for VHT, HE, EHT or S1G PPDU(#11be)).
and that's fine because 10.12.6 does not allow for padding of DMG or whatever PPDUs.
We still have some risk of spec rot because of 10.12.6 itself, but it's smaller (headlines are more easily caught for updating than text buried somewhere) so there's been an improvement.
Thanks,
Mark
-- Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600 1 Cambridge Square, Cambridge CB4 0AE Fax: +44 1223 434601 ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Youhan Kim <youhank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, Mark. I am not opposed to that general direction, but some questions.
Regards, Youhan
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hello Youhan,
I think the point here was to avoid spec rot, e.g. TGbn/TGbx forgetting to add UHR/WIN PPDUs to the list.
So how about "… in a PPDU that is not an HT PPDU"?
Thanks,
Mark
-- Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600 1 Cambridge Square, Cambridge CB4 0AE Fax: +44 1223 434601 ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Youhan Kim <00002b3ff331b292-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector --- Hi, Mike. Sorry but one more.
I would suggest the following alternate resolution to CID 2160.
(Or ACCEPTED is also fine if the Editor is fine with the instruction from the commenter.)
Reason: S-MPDU is not allowed in HT PPDUs. However, the current proposed resolution (delete "in a VHT, HE or EHT PPDU") could be confused to mean that S-MPDU is allowed in HT PPDUs.
Thanks, Youhan
From: Youhan Kim <youhank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you, Mike and Mark.
Mike,
Sorry for the typo. The CIDs missing resolution are 2441, 2442, 2443, 2444, 2445,
And thanks for reassigning 2485 and 2486 to me.
Mark, Yes, I saw the sentence in 9.3.19.1 (D3.0 p790), but it is pretty far away from the individual NDPA frame format subsections - for example, the EHT NDPA is on D3.0 p798. So, it's just easier for the readers to be able to get the info right there, at least a pointer.
Thanks, Youhan
From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector --- Sorry. Hit send too soon. We will discuss tomorrow during the meeting, but we will assign CIDs 2485 and 2486 to you.
Cheers,
Mike
On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 3:32 PM M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 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
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 |