1. Discussion Points for Clause 17
Month Year
doc.: IEEE /0449r0
March, 2007March 2007
Discussion Points for Clause 17
Date:
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < 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 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 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
Carl Kain, Noblis

2. Abstract Discussion points on clause 17comment resolution.
Month Year
doc.: IEEE /0449r0
March, 2007March 2007
Abstract
Discussion points on clause 17comment resolution.
Carl Kain, Noblis

3. March, 2007March 2007
# 745 Noens
Comment: This amendment is dedicated towards the application of an network in a vehicular environment. Vehicles tend to move. The amendments to the OFDM PHY make no mention of how the PHY will account for the resulting channel, multipath fading, frequency offset, doppler etc.
Suggested Remedy: Specify how the PHY will accommodate the vehicular environment. Specify the environment (design limits, requirements etc) such that an implementer of the standard can produce an interoperable product that meets a basic, standardized performance requirement.
Carl Kain, Noblis

4. March, 2007March 2007
Discussion Points:
Proposed Response: The cyclic prefix is sufficiently long and the subcarrier spacing is sufficiently large to accommodate the delays and Doppler spreads nominally encountered (see PER testing results in the GT channel measurement and modeling report). Explanation for why the specifications were designed as they are is not a subject for the standard. The standard is only for making specifications clear and precise.
Carl Kain, Noblis

5. March, 2007March 2007
# 765 Noens
Comment: Is the 10% measure to be taken when the receiver is stationary or under some faded channel assumption?
Proposed Remedy: Clarify this section
Answer to the question: No; the receiver minimum sensitivity test is intended only for an additive white Gaussian noise channel. The main document also does not specify a faded channel, even though nearly all channels have frequency selective fading
Carl Kain, Noblis

6. ACR March, 2007March 2007 interference ACR desired 3dB Min RX sens.
Carl Kain, Noblis

7. March, 2007March 2007
# 774 Erceg
Comment: Category 1 ACR and AACR numbers in table p5 do NOT make sense. If we take category 1 ACR for BPSK R=1/2, the interference power tolerated is -64 dBm (-85dBm + 3dB + 18 dB). Now, if we do the same calculation for the 16-QAM R= 3/4, the interference power tolerated is -59 dBm. Logically, the interference power tolerated in the table p5 should be same for the different coding and modulation levels (this is how it was done in Rev ma). The same problem is in the case of AACR numbers category 1.
Carl Kain, Noblis

8. March, 2007March 2007
# 774 Erceg, cont’d
Change ACR numbers to [ ] dB and AACR numbers to [ ] dB.
Carl Kain, Noblis

9. March, 2007March 2007
From REVma
Carl Kain, Noblis

10. March, 2007March 2007
From .11p
Carl Kain, Noblis

11. Observations about REVma
March, 2007March 2007
Observations about REVma
Min RX sens does not decrement uniformly
When min RX sens goes up, ACR goes down by the same amount
This implies that as SNR requirement goes up, the SIR requirement goes up by same amount (assuming linear RX) +1 -1 +2 -2 +2 -2 +3 -3 +4 -4 +4 -4 +1 -1
Carl Kain, Noblis

12. Observation About .11p March, 2007March 2007 From 802.11p +1 -1 +2 -1-2 +3 -2 +4 +4 -3 -4 +1
Carl Kain, Noblis

13. Another Observation March, 2007March 2007 From 802.11p From REVma
Sequence is repeated
Carl Kain, Noblis

14. (p is always more conservative)
ACR Differences
March, 2007March 2007
From p
From REVma
ACR Difference
(p is always more conservative)
2 dB
2 dB
3 dB
4 dB
5 dB
6 dB
8 dB
5 dB
Erceg’s remedy would make difference always 2dB
Carl Kain, Noblis

15. Note
March, 2007March 2007
More conservative ACR and AACR might be justified on the basis of the need for higher performance in face of receiver nonlinearities
Carl Kain, Noblis

16. March, 2007March 2007
References
Carl Kain, Noblis