doc.: IEEE g November, 2010 Daniel Popa, ITRON Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Comment resolutions for LB #59] Date Submitted: [November 10, 2010] Source: [Daniel Popa] Company [Itron, Inc] Address [France] Re: [] Abstract:[] Purpose:[This document provides resolutions to comments of LB #59] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 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 acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: IEEE g November, 2010 Daniel Popa, ITRON Comment: – 400 kHz channelization isn't allowed on this frequency band (similar to comment #418 on draft 1 who has not been resolved) Commenter request resolution – Please propose a 100 KHz channelization. Response: – ECC REC allows for channel spacing larger than 100kHz. No change required. Resolution: Reject. CID 391 Slide 2

doc.: IEEE g November, 2010 Daniel Popa, ITRON Comment: – 200 kHz channelization isn't allowed on this frequency band (but 200 kHz bandwidth is ok)(similar to comment #418 on draft 1 who has not been resolved) Commenter request resolution – Please propose a 100 KHz channelization scheme for this band (you may still aggregate two 100 kHz channel to get wider modulation bandwidth). Response: – ECC REC allows for channel spacing larger than 100kHz. No change is required. Resolution: Reject. CID 392 Slide 3

doc.: IEEE g November, 2010 Daniel Popa, ITRON Comment: – Add Operating Mode #5 which specifies a data rate of 100kbps with Filtered 2FSK, a mod index of 0.5, and channel spacing of 200kHz. Commenter request resolution – Add to Table 75b. Response: Data rate topic was investigated at length. Current spec is a result of group consensus. No addition of data rate is required. Resolution: Reject. CID 459 Slide 4

doc.: IEEE g November, 2010 Daniel Popa, ITRON Comment: – The ACR numbers for the MR-FSK PHY are too stringent. Commenter request resolution – Use 0 dB for the adjacent channel and 10 dB for the alternate. Response: ACR numbers have been investigated at length. Current spec is a result of group consensus. No change is required. Resolution: Reject. CID 465 Slide 5

doc.: IEEE g November, 2010 Daniel Popa, ITRON Comment: – Since the MAC timing is based on the symbol rate, having a symbol rate tolerance of +/- 300 ppm will mean that timing errors of greater than one symbol will occur for macBeaconOrder values greater than 5. With the original spec of 40 ppm, this occurs for macBeaconOrder values greater than 9, so the proposed change would raise the duty cycle lower bound up by a factor of 16. Is everyone okay with this? Commenter request resolution – I'd prefer to stay with the tried-and-true 40 ppm value but, if a change is desired, moving to 100 ppm would enable dirt-cheap ceramic resonators to be used with only a minor increase in the duty cycle lower bound.. Response: Symbol rate tolerance have been investigated at length. Current spec is a result of group consensus. No change is required. Resolution: Reject. CID 245 Slide 6

doc.: IEEE g November, 2010 Daniel Popa, ITRON Comment: – The introduction of new PHYs does not necessitate new additional acknowledgment mechanisms. The acknowledgment mechanism is a MAC mechanism. The introduction of a new additional Acknowledgment mechanism that also includes changes to the ACK frame format, is out of scope of 15.4g. Commenter request resolution – * remove the delayed acknowledgment mechanism from the 15.4g draft. – * remove clause from the 15.4g draft (that is the additions due to the delayed acknowledgment).. Response: The TG 4g extensively discussed the need for a delayed ACK, in order to support the 4g PHYs. Current definition of delayed ACK in 4g is a group consensus. No change is required. Resolution: Reject. CID 684 Slide 7