[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

stds-802-16-tg2: RE: Ottawa TG2 agenda

Phil,
Given that the recirculation ballot closes tomorrow and in the new draft we can only address comments on the ballot, I wonder what happened to comment #62. I had expressed concern  on it
"Also on comment #62, I am not sure if the wording in you resolution is completely OK. It seems to say the signal drops until it is equal to the thermal noise level (in that case the S/N ratio will be 0 dB). In the original wording, the signal would drop to noise level plus a number equal to a specified S/N (presumably non-zero)."
I believe Jack had the same problem in his email (see enclosure). Should I raise this as a comment so that we can address it?
 
Muya
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Whitehead [mailto:Phil.Whitehead@radiantnetworks.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, 19 January, 2001 06:40
To: rchayer; Wachira, Muya [WDLN2:2H54:EXCH]; paulcom; lewisb; gjg
Cc: stds-802-16-tg2; marks; McGregor, Andy [WDLN2:M200-M:EXCH]
Subject: Ottawa TG2 agenda

Dear TG2ers
 
We will start at 9.30 on Monday morning (Muya can not arrive before then).
 
Or first task is to take stock of where we are and then add timings to the agenda. There are over 260 emails to consider, of which a lot are TG2 business. I will make a list of all of the subject matter, so that we can decide which topics still require resolution by TG2 during the meeting.
 
I will need to get hold of the final output of the recirculation ballot which closes tomorrow (Saturday 20th). We have been receiving new comments as they arrive but there may be more at the last minute.
 
I have contacted the negative voters. 2 say they will now vote positive (or have already done so). The comments from the others will require further work.
 
TG3 request a joint meeting. I have suggested Thursday morning.
 
We have some PAR changes to consider. They are small but we will have to get plenary approval.
 
Thanks to all of you who have been contributing to our process. A lot of effort has been put in, which I hope will make our task in Ottawa easier, so that we can be ready go to sponsor ballot by the end of the meeting.
 
I will arrive Sunday afternoon
See you all next week
 
Phil

Phil:

In comment 62, I believe that the signal level can only fall to the thermal noise floor, less the C/N requirement.

In comment 97, we repeat this wording at many places in the doc and for a number of comment resolutions. Barry and I have agreed on some current wording (I think). It is:

Make Change with wording as per comment 39. "Where the transmissions in neighbouring blocks employ significantly different channel bandwidths then it is likely that a guard frequency equal to one equivalent channel of the widest bandwidth system will be adequate.However analysis suggests that under certain deployment circumstances this may not offer sufficient protection and that a guard frequency equal to one channel at the edge of each operators block may be required."

I think I missed the word block (last line) in my rev9 updates.

Jack

Phil Whitehead wrote:

 Dear all I have completed my first draft of comment resolution (attached). In respect of binding comments, I had one which was not fully accepted, so I am in dialogue with Richard Germon who raised this point. The other points not fully accepted were editorial or non-binding, so I propose not to spend much further time on these before the recirculation. Any comments welcome. However, I think Muya can use this information to start editing straight away.  Phil