1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 1 Clause 17 Comment Resolution Date: 2009-01-20 Authors:

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 2 Abstract This document discusses resolution of comments in Clause 17 for TGp Draft 5.0. Comment IDs 168-172

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 3 CIDs 168-170 From Master Spreadsheet 168Kenney, John 17.3.10. 3 212727 TThe sentence "The interfering signal in the adjacent channel shall be a conformant OFDM signal, using transmit mask M …" should be qualified to refer to a testing situation Change the start of the third sentence of 17.3.10.3 from "The interfering signal" to "During a test, the interfering signal." 169Roy, Richard17.3.8. 8 213737 TRWAVE adds a single temperature range for automotive and outdoor environments -40 to 85 degC. This is automotive temperature grade 3 (AEC-Q100). Grades 2 and 1 are missing and should be included as optional automotive environment temp ranges since such temperatures can be experienced (for example on the dashboards of cars sitting in the sun). Add grades 1 (-40 to 125 degC) and 2 (-40 to 105 degC) from AEC-Q100 to the clause and the PICS and make them optional. 170Kenney, John 17.3.10. 2 214949 TThe sentence "The interfering signal in the adjacent channel shall be a conformant OFDM signal, using transmit mask M …" should be qualified to refer to a testing situation Change the start of the third sentence of 17.3.10.2 from "The interfering signal" to "During a test, the interfering signal."

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 4 Comment 168 and 170 Comments 168 and 170 (John Kenney) Change "The interfering signal" to "During a test, the interfering signal.” –Modification is to text cut and pasted from 802.11-2007; not modified by TGp –This part of the standard describes what ACR and AACR is (pure definition). –Recommend decline or forward to TGm (802.11 maintenance)

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 5 Motion Placeholder Reject comment or: Move to reject comment 168 and 170 Move: Carl Kain Second: Wayne Fisher Yes 8 No 0 Abstain 9 Comment is rejected

6. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 6 Comment 169 Add grades 1 (-40 to 125 deg C) and 2 (-40 to 105 deg C) from AEC-Q100 to the clause and the PICS and make them optional. AEC is Automotive Electronics Council –AEC formed to create sufficient “buying power” to be able to get ICs and passive electronic components for automotive use at reasonable price –AEC concerned with testing electronic parts for early life failure rate and stress test qualification –Original temperature range added by TGp taken from SAE recommendation for passenger compartment electronics

7. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 7 AEC Temperature Grades GradeOperating Temp (degrees C) Typical App 0-40 to +150All automotive 1-40 to +125Most under hood 2-40 to +105Passenger compartment hot spots 3-40 to 85Most passenger compartments 40 to +70Non-automotive

8. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 8 TG Consensus? TGp added “most passenger compartment” electronics commensurate with DVD players, navigation units etc (AEC grade 3) from SAE recommendations for electronics of this nature (internet access electronics for passenger compartment). Initially met with some resistance from WG-issue is cost and testing requirements and justifying need for better than SAE equivalent of AEC grade 3 Does TG want to add additional grades to TGp or let AEC (or SAE) drive any requirements more stringent than grade 3 under the general requirements for any automotive electronics? Grade 0-1 is typical of engine sensor, exhaust sensor (under hood) Grade 2 is specifically for hot spots within passenger compartment Grade 3 is already in TGp What is desire of TG?

9. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 9 Motion Placeholder Move to reject comment 169 Move: Carl Kain Second: Justin McNew Yes 5 No 4 Abstain 8 The chairman had to cast the deciding vote

10. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 10 CIDs 171-172 on ACR 171Erceg, Vinko17.3.10. 2 223TRACR numbers in Table 17-3a are too high and are not aligned with numbers in table 17-3 of the spec. When compared to AACR numbers in table 17-3, numbers in table 17- 3a are 10 dB higher. That is fine. However, ACR numbers are 18 dB higher in BPSK case, for example. Change ACR numbers (lower by 8 dB) in table 17-3a to: 26 25 23 21 18 14 10 9 (in dB, respectively from BPSK to 64QAM). 172Lauer, Jose ph 17.3.10. 2 223TRThe ACR numbers in Table 17-13a are still too high. For example, for rate 1/2 BPSK, mask C allows an interferer to be -26 dBr relative to its maximum at 5 MHz from center and -32 dBr at 5.5 MHz from center. With an allowable ACR of 34 dB, this means that the interferer will have 8 dB more power than the desired signal at the band edge and 2 dB more power than the desired signal at 4.5 MHz from the desired signal's center. We will not be able to achieve 10 % PER for the desired signal at these levels (see 17.3.10.2 of the base standard). Mask C provides, at a minimum, 10 dB more interference suppression than Mask A in an adjacent channel, so the ACR values in Table 17-13a should be 10 dB higher than those in Table 17-13. Therefore, lower all of the ACR values in Table 17-13a by 8 dB from the values in the draft. (Note: this is only for the ACR values, not the AACR values, in Table 17-13a. The AACR values in Table 17-13a of the draft are acceptable.)

11. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 11 Spectrum Mask Data from D 5.0 Annex I

12. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 12 Spectral Mask Diagram from TGp D5.0 Annex I

13. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 13 Background on Construction of Table 17-13 Receiver and alternate adjacent channel interferer are calculated at +/- F5 in previous diagram 10 dB extra protection provided by Mask C Commenters agree with enhanced AACR numbers Receiver and adjacent channel interferer calculation uses average of f3 and f4 in diagram ACR values in base standard are average of two values Mask C would provide additional 12 dB protection over Mask A for ACR, 10 dB additional protection for AACR

14. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 14 Compare Class A to Class C at 5.5-10 MHz

15. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 15 Table 17-13a from TGp Draft 5.0

16. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 16 Table 17-13 from Base Standard

17. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 17 ACR Values Quick method to calculate table 17-13 values: –Desired signal 3 db above rcv. sensitivity level –Implementation margin is 5dB –(rcv sens–imp. margin) – (rcv sens+3 dB) + value of mask = ACR –Value of mask = average of values at 5.5 and 10 MHz offsets Example at BPSK=1/2 from table 17-13 (-85-5) – (-85+3) + (20+28)/2 = 16 dB For ACR with Mask C, difference is value of mask = (32+40)/2=36 dB which is 12 better than Mask A Table 17-13a entry for ACR at BPSK rate ½ for 10 MHz BW and Mask C interferer should be –(-85-5)-(-85+3)-(32+40)/2=28 To maintain consistency with base standard calculation methods, the optional enhanced ACR values should be 12 better than the values in table 17-13.

18. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 18 Summary Commenters are correct that the enhanced ACR values are too stringent if interferer has Mask C. However, their recommended values are based on the mask value of 15 Mhz from CF which is correct for the AACR values, but not the ACR values The ACR values use the average of the 5.5 MHz and 10 MHz break points The values in table 17-13 verify this method Recommend counter on the comment: –Accept comment that the current values are incorrect, but that the commenter’s suggested values use the mask value for AACR, not ACR –Replace existing values with correct values consistent with the calculation method in table 17-13 but replacing Mask A with Mask C for interferer (average of values at 5.5 and 10 MHz break points) for the optional enhanced ACR values in Table 17-13a

19. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 19 Motion Move that the editor replace the optional enhanced ACR values in Table 17-13a in Draft 5.0 with the following: –BPSK ½; 28 dB –BPSK ¾ ; 27 dB –QPSK ½; 25 dB –QPSK ¾; 23 dB –16-QAM ½; 20 dB –16-QAM ¾; 16 dB –64-QAM 2/3; 12 dB –64-QAM ¾; 11 dB Move: Carl Kain Second: Jerry Landt For: 8 Against:0 Abstain: 3

20. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 20 CID 173 Concerning Term “WAVE” 173Stephens, Adria n 17.3.10. 2 223EWhat is WAVE? Why does it suddenly appear in this table? Explain its relevance or call it something more neutral.

21. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 21 Use of term WAVE in amendment Table 17-13a—WAVE enhanced receiver performance requirements Adrian recommends deleting term WAVE from title of table If term is gone, accept comment Term did appear in title, acronym list, and in MIB variable in Draft 5.0

22. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 22 Motion Move to instruct editor to remove term “WAVE” from title of table 17-13a and change the title to –Table 17-13a—Enhanced Receiver Performance Requirements Move: Carl Kain Second: Wayne Fisher Yes : 10 No:0 Abstain:2

23. doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0136r1 Submission January 2008 Carl Kain, USDOT/NoblisSlide 23 References