1. July 2019
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [Comments on Rejected MBS Comments in LB 155]
Date Submitted: [17 July, 2019]
Source: [Joerg ROBERT] Company [Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuernberg]
Address [Am Wolfsmantel 33, Erlangen, Germany]
Voice:[ ], FAX: [ ],
Re: []
Abstract: []
Purpose: [Information to WG and EC]
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
Joerg ROBERT, FAU Erlangen-Nuernberg

2. July 2019
LB 155 – Rejected MBS CID 18
CID
Name
Page
Sub-clause
Line #
Comment
Proposed Change
E/T
Must Be Satisfied? (enter Yes or No)
Resolution 18
Kunal shah 30
24,3 8
Explain the reason for removing optional support for 100 kHz and 200 kHz channel spaing.
Keep the sentence for 100 and 200 kHz channel spacing support for legacy. T
Yes
Reject
The comment was rejected because the 100kHz and 200kHz channel spacings were not removed from the specification. The explicit numbers were removed from and replaced by a reference to where all channel spacings are defined.
Joerg ROBERT, FAU Erlangen-Nuernberg

3. July 2019
LB 155 – Rejected MBS CID 19
CID
Name
Page
Sub-clause
Line #
Comment
Proposed Change
E/T
Must Be Satisfied? (enter Yes or No)
Resolution 19
Kunal shah 33 20
When FEC is employ for legacy mode, the polynomials should stay as specified in the approved standard.
Keep the FEC support for non-split mode as is per approved standard. T
Yes
Reject
The legacy FEC is still part of the draft specification. The polynomials were removed as the legacy FEC is clearly specified by figure In the January meeting with James Gilb it was agreed that two instances (e.g. the polynomial and the figure) defining the very same thing should be avoided.
Joerg ROBERT, FAU Erlangen-Nuernberg