1. Conventions for the arrangement of A-AMAP IEs in the A-AMAP region to reduce blind decoding complexity – Proposed AWD Text Document Number: IEEE C80216m-09_1332 Date Submitted: 2009-07-06 Source: Sudhir Ramakrishna E-mail:sudhir.r@samsung.com@samsung.com Hyunkyu Yu Kaushik Josiam Zhouyue Pi Samsung Electronics Venue: Re: 802.16m amendment working document Category: AWD Comments Area: Chapter 15.3.6 (DL Control) Base Contribution: IEEE C80216m-09_1332 Purpose: To be discussed and adopted by TGm for the 802.16m AWD Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who 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 802.16. Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and.http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3 Further information is located at and.http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.htmlhttp://standards.ieee.org/board/pat

2. IEEE C80216m-09_1332 Slide #2 AWD Text Proposal The following text is proposed to be added on Line 27 on Page 187 of Section 15.3.6.2.2.2 of the current AWD[1]. ************************************* BEGIN Proposed Text ************************************************ Assignment A-MAP IEs shall be arranged within the Assignment A-MAP groups according to the following conventions. 1. All the multicast A-AMAP IEs, i.e., all the A-AMAP IEs intended for more than a single AMS, that are present in any AAMAP group region, shall occupy a contiguous set of MLRUs starting from the beginning of that group region. The DL/UL Group Resource Allocation A-MAP IE, the DL/UL Group Configuration A-MAP IE and the DL/UL Composite Persistent A-MAP IE comprise the multicast A-AMAP IEs. 2. All the unicast A-AMAP IEs intended for a particular AMS shall be transmitted in the same A-AMAP group region, and shall occupy a contiguous set of MLRUs within the group region. The DL/UL Basic Assignment A-MAP IE, the DL/UL Individual Persistent A-MAP IE, Feedback Allocation AMAP IE and the UL Sounding Command AMAP IE comprise the unicast AAMAP IE. ********************************* END Proposed Text *************************************************

3. IEEE C80216m-09_1332 Slide #3 Motivation & Advantages due to added text, 1/2 Motivation – Reduce the number of A-AMAP region blind decode attempts Assumptions about A-AMAP IE size & structure - For a given bandwidth, a. Basic IE Block - Consists of a known number of information bits protected by CRC of known size b. All A-AMAP IEs (unicast or multicast) are composed of one or more (concatenated) Basic IE Blocks  There are text proposals in the current session to include (a) and (b) into the AWD [1].  As a consequence, w.r.t blind decoding operation at AMS Same block size (before coding) in all A-AMAP groups A-AMAP groups distinguished only by MCS used; same block size (after MCS operation) in each A-MAP group Possible arrangement of A-AMAP groups - Groups arranged in decreasing order of MCS robustness Most robust MCS used for 1 st group in A-AMAP region, least robust MCS used for last group Only a convention, does not imply any increase in signaling or loss in performance A-AMAP IE Protection – Expectations & Consequences Need to provide same level of protection to all unicast A-AMAP IEs for AMS  place in same group (= same MCS) Need not provide higher level of protection to unicast A-AMAP IE for AMS as compared to multicast IE for same AMS  Unicast IEs for AMS use same or less robust MCS than multicast IE for same AMS  With above group arrangement, for an AMS, multicast A-AMAP IEs appear in earlier or same group as unicast IEs

4. IEEE C80216m-09_1332 Slide #4 Motivation & Advantages due to added text, 2/2 Advantages of proposed text If an AMS successfully decodes a unicast A-AMAP IE in an A-AMAP region group  By Text Proposal 1 and group arrangement by decreasing MCS robustness order, all multicast A-AMAP IEs for that AMS will have been encountered before the 1 st unicast A-AMAP IE for that AMS  By Text Proposal 2, there are no unicast A-AMAP IEs for that AMS in the subsequent A-AMAP region groups.  Hence, AMS need not attempt to decode the following groups  Savings in number of blind decodes required No additional signaling cost or performance loss due to proposed text Proposed text only defines a convention

5. IEEE C80216m-09_1332 Slide #5 Possible AMS Operation & Blind Decode Savings

6. IEEE C80216m-09_1332 Slide #6 References [1] IEEE802.16m-09/0010r2, “IEEE 802.16m Amendment Working Document”, June 1, 2009.