July 2010 doc IEEE 802 11 100924 r

  • Slides: 5
Download presentation
July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Sub 1 GHz PAR

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Sub 1 GHz PAR Further Comments Authors: Submission Date: 2010 -07 -15 Slide 1 David Halasz, Aclara

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Abstract • The following

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Abstract • The following are comments beyond the PAR review Wednesday 5 o’clock timeframe. They are in response to the updated PAR contained in 10/0001 r 10. Submission Slide 2 David Halasz, Aclara

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Response 1 to Apurva

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Response 1 to Apurva Mody From: apurva mody [mailto: apurva_mody@yahoo. com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3: 08 PM To: Halasz, Dave Subject: Re: [STDS-802 -11 -S 1 G] S 1 G Comments, Responses and proposed new PAR Dear Dave, I sent the comments from PIEEE 802. 22 WG through Bruce Kraemer. I believe that you have made some progress on resolving our comments. We still have a problem with the sentence - " This amendment defines operation in license-exempt bands below 1 GHz, excluding the TV White Space. P 802. 11 af defines operation in the TV White Space bands, which are below 1 GHz. " The words "TV White Space" should be changed to "TV frequency bands". Response: 802. 11 -10/0001 r 13 PAR scope statement removed the all references to TV White Space. In the purpose statement, “TV White Spaces” does properly refer to the unlicensed TV bands. Thanks Apurva ______________________________ Apurva N. Mody, Ph. D. Chair, IEEE 802. 22 Standard Working Group Cell: 404 -819 -0314 Submission Slide 3 E-mail: apurva_mody@yahoo. com David Halasz, Aclara

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Comment 2 from Lily

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Comment 2 from Lily Yang From: Yang, Lily L [mailto: lily. l. yang@intel. com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6: 01 PM To: jrosdahl@ieee. org; Halasz, Dave; Bruce Kraemer Subject: FW: [802. 15. 4 g] Fwd: 802. 11 S 1 G PAR coment response and Revised PAR and 5 C Dave/Jon/Bruce – Sorry that I didn’t make it to the morning S 1 G meeting so didn’t get a chance to give you this feedback. The first sentence – “This amendment defines enhancements to the IEEE 802. 11 Medium Access Control (MAC) to support an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) Physical layer (PHY) operating in the license-exempt bands…” seems to imply that the amendment only defines MAC changes, which I thought is just the opposite of what you meant to say. S 1 G defines OFDM PHY for a new band with minimum MAC changes to support the rebanding. I hope this is just my misunderstanding but I want to mention to you to avoid mis-interpretation down the road that may create problem. I did vote for the motion in the mid plenary this morning based on the understanding I got from last night’s meeting, not based on my interpretation of this sentence which I think is not intended. Response: : 802. 11 -10/0001 r 13 PAR scope statement has been clarified. Lily Submission Slide 4 David Halasz, Aclara

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Comment 3 from 802.

July 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0924 r 1 Comment 3 from 802. 15 TG 4 G -----Original Message----From: Phil Beecher [mailto: pebeecher@gmail. com] On Behalf Of Phil Beecher Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2: 14 PM To: Bruce Kraemer; Halasz, Dave Cc: James Gilb; Bob Heile Subject: Fwd: 802. 11 S 1 G (Sub. GHz) PAR and 5 C discussion Dear Bruce, Please circulate as appropriate: 802. 15 TG 4 g discussed the revised 802. 11 Sub. GHz PAR and 5 C, and comment responses. The following comments were unanimously agreed by TG 4 g (For: 30, Against: 0, Abstain: 5) * The PAR does not offer any uniqueness or advantages as compared to 802. 15 TG 4 g draft standards activity on PHYs to meet the sub. GHz requirement. TG 4 g has PHYs that work in these frequency bands which should be considered. Data rates should be consistent with existing 802. 11 data rates. Below 1. 2 Mbps it is recommended that 802. 15 TG 4 g PHY's be used Response: 802. 11 -10/0001 r 13 PAR scope statement provides for many WLAN applications in sub 1 GHz. * If this PAR is accepted as proposed, it is not justified to restrict the acceptable PHY modes to OFDM only. Other PHY modes currently under consideration in TG 4 g also meet the 802. 11 S 1 G PAR requirement. Response: 802. 11 -10/0001 r 13 PAR scope statement restricts to OFDM PHYs because they are best suited to WLAN applications. Also the restrictive selection of OFDM was made to address concerns regarding vagueness in earlier versions. * The statement "while coexisting with the 802 PHYs currently operating in the respective band. " is not strong enough. TG 4 g recommends using the wording adopted in 802. 15. 4 g PAR and 802. 11 ad PAR. Response: 802. 11 -10/0001 r 13 PAR scope statement was amended to adapt the wording in the IEEE 802. 11 ad PAR. Regards, Phil Beecher Chair 802. 15 TG 4 g Submission Slide 5 David Halasz, Aclara