1. July 2010
doc.: IEEE
July 2010
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: Proposal for TG6 Clause 9 Comment Resolution
Date Submitted: 13 July, 2010
Source: Anuj Batra, Texas Instruments and Mark Dawkins, Toumaz Technology
Re: Response to IEEE Letter Ballot comments
Abstract: This document proposes several resolutions for Letter Ballot 55, specifically for the Narrowband PHY section.
Purpose: For discussion by IEEE TG6
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
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

2. Header Check Sequence Comment(s): S9-1, S9-26 Proposed Resolution:
July 2010
Header Check Sequence
Comment(s): S9-1, S9-26
“The order of transmission of HCS seems to be MSB to LSB and is not consistent with LSB to MSB transmission chosen for the rest of the document”
Proposed Resolution:
Change MSB to HCS0 and LSB to HCS3 in Figure 109, or
Replace Figure 109 with the following
Discussion:
Changing the labels on the shift registers will any eliminate confusion
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

3. Transmit Order (1) Comment(s): S9-2, S9-27 Proposed Resolution:
July 2010
Transmit Order (1)
Comment(s): S9-2, S9-27
“first bit of the message – first bit of the message to be transmitted?”
Proposed Resolution:
Add text into line 17 of :
“…m50 is the first bit of the message to be transmitted and m0 is the last bit …”
Discussion:
This addition clarifies the meaning of m50, since by previous definition the first bit transmitted is always the least significant bit.
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

4. Transmit Order (2) Comment(s): S9-80, S9-92 Proposed Resolution:
July 2010
Transmit Order (2)
Comment(s): S9-80, S9-92
“first bit of the message – first bit of the message to be transmitted?”
Proposed Resolution:
Replace 9.4 (b) step (1) with the following text:
“Divided into blocks of messages starting with the LSB of the least significant octet of the PSDU and continuing to the MSB of the most significant octet of the PSDU”
Replace 9.4 (b) step (2) with the following text:
“Shortening bits may then be appended to the messages, which are then encoded into codewords using a BCH (63, 51) encoder to achieve the desired code rate, according to
Discussion:
Above text addresses how the PSDU into broken into messages
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

5. Bit Interleaver Comment(s): S9-4, S9-29 Proposed Resolution:
July 2010
Bit Interleaver
Comment(s): S9-4, S9-29
“The bit interleaver is used only for the spread case. This is ambiguous in the document”
Proposed Resolution:
Add the following text to the start of line 9 in Section 9.4.4:
“In the case that spreading factor is equal to 2 or 4, the output …”
Discussion:
Adding this text clarifies that the bit interleaver is only used when the spreading factor is 2 or 4.
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

6. Reference Phase Comment(s): S9-6, S9-7, S9-31, S9-32, S9-57, S9-116
July 2010
Reference Phase
Comment(s): S9-6, S9-7, S9-31, S9-32, S9-57, S9-116
“what is S(0)? Is this the first symbol to be transmitted of the PLCP preamble?”
Proposed Resolution:
Replace line 11 in Section with the following text:
“where S(-1) = exp(jp/2) is the reference for the first symbol of the preamble and ..”
Change the range in line 10 (equation 65) to start at k=0
Discussion:
These change remove any ambiguity for the reference phase
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

7. Constellation Mapping
July 2010
Constellation Mapping
Comment(s): S9-8, S9-33
“what is the bit stream – is this the concatenated bit stream?”
Proposed Resolution:
Bring Section Constellation Mapping one level higher, thereby making it into its own section
Insert the following text under the title heading Constellation Mapping:
“The constellation mapper operates on the binary bit stream b(n), which is the concatentation of the PLCP preamble, the PLCP header and the PSDU.”
Change the first sentence of Section to the following:
“For the GMSK constellation, b(n), n = 0, 1, …, N-1 shall be mapped onto …”
Change the first sentence of Section to the following:
“For the D-PSK constellations, b(n), n = 0, 1, …, N-1 shall be mapped onto …”
Discussion:
These changes clarify the definition of the binary bit stream
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

8. Scrambler (1) Comment(s): S9-5, S9-30 Proposed Resolution: Discussion:
July 2010
Scrambler (1)
Comment(s): S9-5, S9-30
“The first bits coming out of the scrambler to scramble data after initialization is ambiguous”
Proposed Resolution:
Add the following text to section on line 9:
“For example, when the Scrambler Seed is set to 0, the first 20 bits out of the scrambler are: ”
Discussion:
Enumerating the first 20 bits of the scrambler for a given scrambler seed will eliminate any confusion
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

9. Scrambler (2) Comment(s): S9-18 Proposed Resolution: Discussion:
July 2010
Scrambler (2)
Comment(s): S9-18
“No mention of how many bits are needed to flush the scrambler”
Proposed Resolution:
Reject comment
Discussion:
The narrowband PHY uses a side-stream scrambler, therefore the scrambler does not need to be flushed since the data bits are not fed into the scrambler
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

10. Sensitivity Comment(s): S9-12, S9-37, S9-48 Proposed Resolution:
July 2010
Sensitivity
Comment(s): S9-12, S9-37, S9-48
“The minimum sensitivity numbers can be lower than the numbers listed in Table 49.”
Proposed Resolution:
Change text in line 19 Section to
“For a packet error rate (PER) of less than or equal to 10% with a PSDU of 255 octets in AWGN, a compliant device shall achieve receiver sensitivities listed in Table 49, or better”
Change heading for column 3 in Table 49 to “Maximum Input Level at Sensitivity (dBm)
Discussion:
Clarifies that the sensitivity can be lower than the number listed in Table 49
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

11. ED Threshold (1) Comment(s): S9-13, S9-22, S9-38, S9-49, S9-65
July 2010
ED Threshold (1)
Comment(s): S9-13, S9-22, S9-38, S9-49, S9-65
“ED Threshold should be defined as 10 dB above the minimum receiver sensitity, which corresponds to the lowest data rate”
Suggestion:
Modify first bullet to say “10 dB above the minimum specified receiver sensitivity (see 9.8.1) OR”
Counter-proposal Resolution:
Modify first bullet to say "10 dB above the receiver sensitivity as defined in Table 49 for the lowest data rate within a given band (see 9.8.1) OR"
Discussion:
Counter-proposal eliminates any confusion over what is the minimum specified receiver sensitibity
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

12. ED Threshold (2) Comment(s): S9-43 Proposed Resolution: Discussion:
July 2010
ED Threshold (2)
Comment(s): S9-43
“Specifying details for "ED Threshold" is key to ensuring interoperabililty with existing MICS systems compliant with standards such as EN V1.3.1.”
Proposed Resolution:
Replace the text in the second bullet, section with the following:
“that which is prescribed by local regulatory requirements, or applicable standards, whichever is lower.”
Discussion:
It is dangerous to reference any specific documents, because if the documents change, then the standard also needs to be unnecessarily updated
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

13. ED Threshold (3) Comment(s): S9-45 Proposed Resolution: Discussion:
July 2010
ED Threshold (3)
Comment(s): S9-45
“Specifying details for ‘ED Measurement Time’ is key to ensuring interoperabililty with existing MICS systems compliant with standards such as EN V1.3.1.”
Proposed Resolution:
Replace the text in the second bullet, section with the following:
“that which is prescribed by local regulatory requirements, or applicable standards, whichever is longer in duration.”
Discussion:
It is dangerous to reference any specific documents, because if the documents change, then the standard also needs to be unnecessarily updated
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

14. pMIFS Comment(s): S9-63 Proposed Resolution: Discussion:
July 2010
pMIFS
Comment(s): S9-63
“The way this statement is written, it gives no tolerance to the transmitter or receiver requirements”
Proposed Resolution:
Change the first sentence in Section to the following:
“For burst mode transmissions, the inter-frame spacing between uninterrupted successive transmissions by a device shall be between pMIFS and pMIFS + 5ms.”
Discussion:
The text above adds a tolerance to the pMIFS value.
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

15. pCCATime Comment(s): S9-82, S9-94, S9-119, S9-138 Proposed Resolution:
July 2010
pCCATime
Comment(s): S9-82, S9-94, S9-119, S9-138
“change to pCCATime shall be the lower of those specified in Table 44 or by local regulatory authorities”
“text should read ‘whichever is lower’”
Proposed Resolution:
In Section 9.6 line 13, change “which” to “whichever”
Discussion:
Text already states that the pCCATime is the lower of values in Table 44 or the values specified by the local regulatory authorities
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

16. SRRC Equation July 2010 Comment(s): S9-95 Proposed Resolution:
“The standard does not define a Square Root Raised Cosine (SRRC) filter for the transmitter”
Proposed Resolution:
Insert a new section 9.x, entitled “SRRC Pulse Shape”, to follow the section “Constellation Mapping”
Insert the following the text into this new section: “The square-root raised cosine (SRRC) pulse shape with roll-off factor b and symbol period Ts described in Equation (x) shall be used to filter the symbols and shape the spectrum.
(x)
The exact value for the roll-off factor b and the duration of the SRRC pulse shape is implementation dependent.”
In Section line 6, change “matched SRRC filtering” to “SRRC filtering matched to the transmitter under test”
In Tables 26-32, replace “Symbol Rate (ksps)” with “Symbol Rate = 1/Ts (ksps)”
Discussion:
This new section defines the time-domain impulse response for an SRRC pulse shape
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

17. Turnaround Time Comment(s): S9-23, S9-62 Proposed Resolution:
July 2010
Turnaround Time
Comment(s): S9-23, S9-62
“A mimimum time should be specified for RX to TX turn-around, so that TX is not allowed to begin immediately. If TX is allowed to begin immediately than remote RX has to be ready to receive immediately or it will miss the start of the transmission. In such a case there is no point in specifying Transmit-to-Receive Turnaround Time (9.6.3) since it will not guarrantee correct interworking.”
Proposed Resolution:
In Section 9.6.2, change the first sentence to:
“The RX-to-TX turnaround time shall be between pSIFS and pSIFS + 5ms”
Discussion:
This new definition ensures that the receiving device will not miss a packet due to timing issues
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz

18. 902-928 MHz (1) Comment(s): S9-52 Proposed Resolution: Discussion:
July 2010
doc.: IEEE
July 2010
MHz (1)
Comment(s): S9-52
“Channel plan of MHz frequency bands is not appropriate for the frequency regulation of Korea”
Proposed Resolution:
Replace entries in Table 29 with entries from Table 30
Delete column 5 in Table 35, and change the heading of column 4 to include “ MHz”
In Table 42, change the 2nd column entry for the MHz band to “fc =  nc (MHz), nc = 0, …, 59”
Change the 3rd column entry in Table 46 for MHz band to “400 kHz”
Delete the rows associated with MHz band in Table 49, and change the 4th row in the 1st column to include “ MHz”
Delete the rows associated with MHz band in Table 50, and change the 4th row in the 1st column to include “ MHz”
Change the 2nd column entry in Table 14 for MHz band to “607.1 kbps”
Discussion:
This change harmonizes the “900” MHz bands worldwide. In addition, it reduces the probability of collision with RFID interrogators in Korea
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz
Anuj Batra and Mark Dawkins, TI and Toumaz