1. MA’s Response to Selected Comments
March 2007
doc.: IEEE /0458r0
March 2007
MA’s Response to Selected Comments
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
Carl Kain, Noblis

2. March 2007
doc.: IEEE /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 p
Carl Kain, Noblis
Carl Kain, Noblis

3. 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

4. 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

5. Relevant REVma Excerpts (Same for .11p)
March 2007
Relevant REVma Excerpts (Same for .11p)
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.”
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

6. # 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 p
Carl Kain, Noblis

7. # 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 REVma, not about text of the amendment (see next slide).
Carl Kain, Noblis

8. 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

9. 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 p standard should be consistent with main document in this regard.
Carl Kain, Noblis

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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” p 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.” p will not diverge from the main document in this respect.
Carl Kain, Noblis

13. 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

14. March 2007
From REVma
Carl Kain, Noblis

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

16. 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

17. 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 p amendment. This question is not relevant to p.
Carl Kain, Noblis

18. 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 (see next slide).
Carl Kain, Noblis

19. March 2007
From REVma
Carl Kain, Noblis

20. 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

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