Channel coding chain E-mail Rapporteur
Current coding chain in 36.300 Node B (or UE) Channel-state information, etc. N Transport blocks (dynamic size S1..., SN) ACK/NACK HARQ HARQ info CRC CRC Redundancy for error detection Coding + RM Coding + RM Redundancy for data detection Redundancy version Interl. MAC scheduler Interleaving Modulation scheme Data modulation QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM Data modulation Resource/power assignment RB mapping Resource mapping Antenna mapping Multi-antenna processing Antenna mapping
CRC Attachment Question 1: Which is your preference? Transport block Transport block CRC attachment Code block segmentation Code block segmentation CRC attachment Channel coding Channel coding CRC per transport block - Pros: Small CRC overheard CRC per code block segment - Pros: Power saving at UE by stopping the turbo decoding Question 1: Which is your preference? Per transport block or per code block segment
Channel interleaving Question 2: Transport block Transport block Transport block Channel coding Channel coding Channel coding Hybrid ARQ functionality (Rate matching) Hybrid ARQ functionality (Rate matching) Hybrid ARQ functionality (Rate matching) Interleaving Bit-level scrambling Bit-level scrambling Bit-level scrambling Spatial distribution Spatial distribution Spatial distribution Modulation mapper Modulation mapper Modulation mapper Interleaving (a) No channel interleaver (only CBRM internal interleaver) (b) Within code block segmentation (S and P interlace) - Bit level interleaving (c) Within X OFDM/SC-FDMA symbol (X=1, 7(slot), 14(sub-frame) - symbol level interleaving Question 2: Which is your preference? (a), (b) or (c) (if (c), how depth?)
Mapping order As Durga-san commented, there are two options: with each code block spanning 1/2 the TTI (sequential transmission) vs. each code block spanning 1/2 the number of RB but the entire TTI (parallel transmission). From the viewpoint of frequency diversity gain, I believe that we could agree first option. If you have different view, please feedback on this e-mail discussion