| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hello Carlos,
The right way to debate this is through the balloting and comment resolution process.
Submit your comment(s) on LB296. The comment will be debated in TGbn. You can build support for your position there.
Since this is PAR related, I'm also willing to let you present and build support in the September WG mid-week plenary.
I don't think an email exchange will accomplish much.
Regards,
-Robert
From: *** IEEE STDS-802-11 List *** <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Thomas Pare <0000296b6387558a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 9:21 AM To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] Vote "NO" on LB296! --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hello Vinko,
I agree and believe the actual UHR PAR is not being correctly stated or interpreted. It reads [23/11-23-0480r3]:
“…at least one mode of operation capable of increasing throughput by 25%, as measured at the MAC data service Access Point, in at least one Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) level (Rate-vs-Range), compared to the Extremely High Throughput MAC/PHY operation”
There are dozens of contributions that demonstrate UHR features (DSO, NPCA, ELR, DRU, MAP) enable 11bn devices to boost the Rate-vs-Range performance well above the 25% target.
Best regards, Tom Pare
From: *** IEEE STDS-802-11 List *** <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Vinko Erceg
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector --- Well, incorrect understanding.
We all here know that "throughput" also includes a gamut of metrics such as system throughput, throughput in the presence of interference (NPCA, MAPC schemes), throughput in the presence of lower bandwidth non-APs (DSO), throughput while optimizing device power consumption (DPS), throughput at a farther coverage edge (ELR), throughput while meeting latency requirements (all the above features). Throughput cannot be interpreted as just a peak value that exists between 2 devices in the absence of any other contenders/conditions.
Therefore, ".... a couple hundred of the world’s premier Wireless Technologists ...." have done a wonderful job on that and I thank all of them on their hard work and great amendment that will proliferate in billions of devices.
Thank you All and Best Regards,
Vinko Erceg
From: *** IEEE STDS-802-11 List *** <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Carlos Rios <carlos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector --- Dear IEEE802.11 Colleagues: I’m likely unknown to most of you (although a few may recall my pitching a 92 Gbps TGbn PHY a little while back), but I’ve actually been a diligent dot11-er since 1998. An Old School PHY guy, I materially contributed to standards b, a, g and n, only to then step back and watch all the young’uns go on to shine with ac, ax and, most famously, be. But now, however, tremendously dismayed with TGbn I feel compelled reach out to the entire 802.11 Voting Membership in this fashion.
In short: - P802.11bn D2.0 is fatally flawed and SHOULD NOT be forwarded to SA ballot for ratification and incorporation into IEEE Std 802.11 IOW, Vote “DISAPPROVE” on LB296, for reasons of PAR non-compliance!
In not so short:
Well, I don’t know about you, and maybe I’m just being an Old School by-the-book fuddy-duddy, but I find such shenanigans PATENTLY ABSURD, pretty embarrassing and more than just a little bit insulting. WHO DOES THIS? Definitely NOT the world’s premier Wireless Technologists.
IMHO, the WG should respond by gently telling our misguided TGbn brethren “Uh, NO. Please go back and finish the task we gave you”
As an editorial aside, I am shocked, SHOCKED that TGbn led a couple hundred of the world’s premier Wireless Technologists on a 3-year trek down this particular rabbit hole.
We dropped the ball, too. Oops.
Colleagues, WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS!
Please overwhelmingly “DISAPPROVE” LB296, let’s quickly put this unfortunate episode behind us and immediately get back to devising and standardizing the best radios this world has ever seen.
UHR-EHT Throughput Analysis The P802.11 PAR reads, in part (boldface and parentheses mine): “… Ultra High Reliability (MAC/PHY operation) … is defined as …operation capable of increasing throughput by 25% … compared to the Extremely High Throughput MAC/PHY operation…”
WiFi Point-to-Point Link Throughput can be succinctly expressed as: IEEE802.11 Tpt = Peak WiFi Stream Data Rate (“PDR”) x MIMO Order (“Nss”) x MLO order “nMLO”, where PDR = Maximum MCS/ Bandwidth/ Guard Interval construct per the corresponding IEEE802.11 Modulation-Coding Scheme Table(s) nMLO = Number of distinct AP-Client connections comprising the link
- A fair UHR-EHT Link Tpt comparison would first predicate identical MIMO and MLO orders - Such reduces the alleged throughput discrepancy to a 25% greater UHR PDR over that of EHT - However, UHR and EHT Peak Data Rates are IDENTICAL (i.e., 2882 Mbps given MCS13, 320 MHz BW and 800ns GI)! Ergo, this particular UHR construct IS NOT CAPABLE of 25% greater throughput than EHT
So, P802.11bn D2.0 DOES NOT COMPLY with its enabling P802.11bn PAR QED
Thanks for your attention, and best regards, Carlos
Carlos A. Rios CEO, Terabit Wireless LLC (408) 202-6294
Carlos A. Rios CEO, Terabit Wireless LLC (408) 202-6294
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 |