MA’s Response to Selected Comments March 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0458r0 March 2007 MA’s Response to Selected Comments Date: 2007-03-14 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair stuart@ok-brit.com as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>. Carl Kain, Noblis Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0458r0 March 2007 Abstract This presentation contains Mary Ann Ingram’s response and recommendations to comments on clause 17 and annexes I and J for 802.11p Carl Kain, Noblis Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 # 784 and 786 (Lemberger): 784: Table p5 assumes that the performance with adjacent channel is defined by the receiver filtering. System in the adjacent channel that meets the spectral masks classes A and B defined in annex I will cause the tested receiver not to meet Category 1 requirements. 784 author’s remedy: Modify category 1 requirements to be the same as defined in table 151 786 is similar- refers to classes A,B and C and Category 2 Carl Kain, Noblis

Interpretation of the comment March 2007 Interpretation of the comment interference ACR desired 3dB Min RX sens. RX filter Suspect a confusion between the test scenario and the operational scenario Suspect the commenter thinks that an interference signal equaling the spectral mask would cause excessive in-band interference if the differential power were as specified by the ACR Carl Kain, Noblis

Relevant REVma Excerpts (Same for .11p) March 2007 Relevant REVma Excerpts (Same for .11p) 17.3.10.2 Adjacent channel rejection: “The interfering signal in the adjacent channel shall be a conformant OFDM signal, unsynchronized with the signal in the channel under test.” 17.3.10.3 Nonadjacent channel rejection: “The interfering signal in the nonadjacent channel shall be a conformant OFDM signal, unsynchronized with the signal in the channel under test.” Carl Kain, Noblis

# 784 and 786 Proposed Resolution March 2007 # 784 and 786 Proposed Resolution Proposed resolution: reject. In the test scenario, signal generators are used to generate the test signals; they have much lower sidelobes than the spectral mask. So the ACR requirement is a test for the receiver; the test is decoupled from the spectrum mask specification. Further to this, the already approved masks and ACR requirements for the USA Public safety 4.9 GHz band are comparable to those for 802.11p Carl Kain, Noblis

# 812 (Cypher) Comment: What is a conformed OFDM PHY? March 2007 # 812 (Cypher) Comment: What is a conformed OFDM PHY? Suggested Remedy: Change conformed to conformant, as in the previous paragraph. Proposed Resolution: reject. This comment is about text in 802.11 REVma, not about text of the amendment (see next slide). Carl Kain, Noblis

Relevant Excerpts From Proposed .11p Amendment March 2007 Relevant Excerpts From Proposed .11p Amendment 802.11p/D2.01 proposed amendments are underlined Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 # 799 (Perahia) Comment: specify a minimum duty cycle of the interferer Proposed Resolution: reject. The duty cycle is not specified in the main document. The 802.11p standard should be consistent with main document in this regard. Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 Comments # 787, 793, 804, 810, 818 787 (Perahia): What is the adjacent channel rejection with a 10MHz signal adjacent to a 20MHz signal? For example, channel 172 & channel 175 804 (Perahia): What is the nonadjacent channel rejection with a 10MHz signal and a 20MHz signal? For example, channel 176 & channel 181 793 and 810 (Oyama): From Annex J Table J.1, 10MHz and 20MHz channels are co-exist. However, there is no definition for adjacent 10MHz and 20MHz channels. 818 (Oyama): From Annex J Table J.1, 10MHz and 20MHz channels are co-exist. There is no definition for alternate adjacent 20MHz channels separating by 10MHz channel. Carl Kain, Noblis

Interpretation of Commenter’s Concerns March 2007 Interpretation of Commenter’s Concerns ACR and non-ACR test definitions do not specify exactly what type of signal is interfering Different types of conformant signals and different types of in-between-signals (for non-ACR) might cause different levels of in-band interference To avoid excessive in-band interference, spectral masks for different types of signals should be different, depending on “adjacency” Carl Kain, Noblis

Proposed Resolutions Regarding channel rejection (787, 804): Reject. March 2007 Proposed Resolutions Regarding channel rejection (787, 804): Reject. The main document requires only that the interfering signals in the CR tests are “conformant OFDM”. 802.11p will not be more specific in this regard. Regarding 10 MHz and 20 MHz channel definitions (793, 810 and 818): Reject. The main document defines the 10 and 20 MHz channels without regards to “adjacency.” 802.11p will not diverge from the main document in this respect. Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 #785 (Lemberger): Comment: Table p5 sensitivity requirements are redundant and already appears in table 151. Commenter’s proposed response: Remove sensitivity requirement Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 From REVma Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 From .11p Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 #785 Proposed Resolution The receiver minimum input sensitivity information in p5 is identical to that for 10 MHz in Table 145. Proposed resolution: accept. There seems to be no need to refer to p5 in the paragraph on Receiver minimum input sensitivity. Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 # 794, 795 (Raissinia) 794: How is RSSI computed for multiple RX antennas? 795: How is WRSS computed for multiple RX antennas? Proposed Resolution: reject. Neither of these acronyms are used in the 802.11p amendment. This question is not relevant to 802.11p. Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 #803 (Cypher) Comment: Inconsistency with terms: Nonadjacent channel rejection and Alternate channel rejection. The term used in the text is the former, while the term used in the previous table is the latter Suggested Remedy: Be consistent, use one term or the other, but not both. Since nonadjacent came first, I lean towards its useage. Proposed Resolution: reject. The terminology for the amendment is consistent with that of the main document. This is an issue for 802.11 (see next slide). Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 From REVma Carl Kain, Noblis

March 2007 #768 (Perahia) From REVma, Table 145 Comment: What sensitivity numbers are used when in 20MHz channel spacing No suggested remedy. Proposed Resolution: reject. Minimum sensitivity for 20 MHz channel spacing is specified in the main document in Table 145. 802.11p amendment Table p5 specifies only 10 MHz channel spacings. Carl Kain, Noblis

References IEEE P802.11-REVma/D9.0 Oct 2006 (“main document”) March 2007 References IEEE P802.11-REVma/D9.0 Oct 2006 (“main document”) Draft P802.11p/D2.01, March 2007 Carl Kain, Noblis