Re: [STDS-802-11] Survey re change to Use_Protection bit (was RE: Survey

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

Hi Youhan,

Thanks; I agree that the direction you suggest is preferable.

I will prepare a resolution along these lines and upload this week.

I would like to make the following request to the group:

If you OBJECT to the resolution of changing only the requirement that an AP shall (as it is currently) set the Use_Protection bit to 1 whenever a NonERP STA is associated in the BSS, and making no other substantive changes, please reply to the reflector. (There is descriptive text in various places that should also change.)

Note: there is also a NonERP_Present bit, which signals whether NonERP STAs are present in the BSS or OBSSs. OBSS APs can already set the Use_Protection bit as they wish when NonERP_Present = 1.

Thanks,

Sean

From: *** IEEE STDS-802-11 List *** <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Youhan Kim
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2026 10:20 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [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))

External mail : This email originated from outside the organization. Do not reply, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

--- 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

Do not change the current rule regarding the Use_Protection field

I.e., do not change the two locations you have cited

Instead, do not require an AP to set Use_Protection = 1 when there are non-ERP STAs around

I.e., relax REVmf D3.1 P2479L43

"If one or more non-ERP STAs are associated in the BSS, the Use_Protection bit shall be set to 1 in transmitted ERP elements."

E.g., change the 'shall' to 'should' or 'may'?

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
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2026 12:38 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Survey re use of CCK modes (in connection with LB 295 CID 2452)

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:

How widely are the 5.5 Mbps and 11 Mbps modes used today?
Are there any cases where it is currently desirable or necessary to transmit 5.5 Mbps or 11 Mbps?

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