| 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 ---
Hi, Sean.
Thank you very much for initiating the discussion.
I think it is a reasonable general direction - to create ways to be able to lower the network overhead coming from having to use DSSS/CCK based protection frames.
However, your proposal seems to get rid of the ability for an AP to choose to enforce the use of DSSS/CCK protection frames even if the AP sees a need to do so.
E.g., what if we make the proposed change, and then find in the field that there are some situations where requiring DSSS/CCK protection frames is useful?
Therefore, I would suggest
This allows APs to choose to reduce the network overhead by not mandating the DSSS/CCK protection usage, or choose to keep the existing rule of requiring the use of DSSS/CCK protection when the AP feels there is a need for the protection (despite the overhead).
Thanks,
Youhan
From: *** IEEE STDS-802-11 List *** <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Sean Coffey <coffey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2026 11:13 AM To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [STDS-802-11] Survey re change to Use_Protection bit (was RE: Survey re use of CCK modes (in connection with LB 295 CID 2452)) 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 Working Group Reflector ---
Dear all,
A previous survey (see below) asked about the prevalence of CCK in current deployments. Many thanks to all who responded, to the reflector and privately.
Based on the resulting discussions, there is some support for an alternative resolution to the comment. Instead of deprecating CCK, the resolution would remove the requirement that a protection mechanism using DSSS/CCK must be used for all transmissions if there is even one NonERP STA in the BSS.
The relevant current requirements are:
“An ERP STA shall invoke the use of a protection mechanism after transmission or reception of the Use_Protection bit with a value of 1 in an MMPDU to or from the BSS that the ERP STA has joined or started.” (11mf D3.0 P2477 L54)
“Additionally, if any of the rates in the BSSBasicRateSet parameter of the protection mechanism frame transmitting STA’s BSS are Clause 15 (DSSS PHY specification for the 2.4 GHz band designated for ISM applications) or Clause 16 (High rate direct sequence spread spectrum (HR/DSSS) PHY specification) rates, then the protection mechanism frames shall be sent at one of those Clause 15 (DSSS PHY specification for the 2.4 GHz band designated for ISM applications) or Clause 16 (High rate direct sequence spread spectrum (HR/DSSS) PHY specification) basic rates.” (P2476 L56)
I would like to ask the following: if you do NOT support this change, please respond to the reflector.
If there are no objections, I’ll prepare a detailed motion (there would be various changes to surrounding descriptive text) and bring it up in the November meeting.
Thanks,
Sean
From: Sean Coffey
On Behalf Of coffey@xxxxxxxx
Dear all,
CID 2542 in LB 295 (REVmf D3.0) proposes deprecating Clause 16, which defines the CCK 5.5 Mbps and 11 Mbps modes.
This was discussed during the TGmf ad hoc meeting in Cambridge last week. Following the discussion, I would like to ask the following:
Thanks in advance for any information on this topic.
Regards,
Sean 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 |