[STDS-802-16] Re :Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Hi, all,
For comment #426, we(Samsung) agree that it is not correct, so we withdraw that comment.
For comments #470,474,543, our intension is to make TGd text more complete for MIMO
by adding the missing parts.
But if most of the members think that they are out of scope, we will follow the group's opinion.
Thanks.
Seung Joo.
------- Original Message -------
Sender : Itzik Kitroser<itzikk@RUNCOM.CO.IL>
Date : 2004-06-04 01:41
Title : Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5
Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Here is a continuation of the saga.
1. Comment #426 from Changhoi,
The proposal is to add the following entry to the OFDMA DLFP message,
under the Coding_Indication field:
0b100 - STC encoding used on DL-MAP
My comment on this is:
(a) I believe that STC is not a coding indication (and not a coding at
all).
(b) This is redundant since, the DL-MAP is transmitted in the same OFDMA
symbol as the FCH (which contains the DLFP), so I really don't see any
logic of indicating on STC usage when the SS already have demodulated
the symbol.
Unless a good explanation/reason will provided, I'm going to vote
against this change.
2. Comments #470,474,543 relates to items which were approved in the TGe
and the commenter think that they should be entered into TGd draft.
From my opinion, they are out of scope, since they don't relate to any
comment/change done in the previous circulation, and the fact that they
are in Tge is not enough reason for insertion.
3. Comment #484, from Lalit,
The comment requires the following clarification:
" Clarification needed for Odd /Even Symbols for Fig 234, Fig 236 and
Fig 245. Does odd start first or ven based on frame structure defined in
Fig 218"
I had similar comment in previous recirculation, but when implementing
the comments, I remembered that the first symbol in a frame is a
preamble, therefore the frame actually starts with an odd symbol. With
this perspective, I think that the figures are correct.
Regards,
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:48 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Here is a concern about comment #410
In the comment text I found the following reason for comment:
"The PHY Synchronization field was accidentally removed going form IEEE
802.16d/D3 to IEEE 802.16d/D4. This is an editorial change.
OFDM PHY sync field is missing elements."
When reviewing the relevant database (80216-04_11r2), I found the
following instruction of comment #305 from Nico (which was accepted)
"Set PHY sync field to be empty (don't delete it).
Add Frame Duration Code and Frame Number as mandatory fields to DCD for
OFDM."
This is exactly what was implemented from D3 to D4. So the contents of
the PHY Synchronization field was not removed "accidentally".
In my view:
(a) The above makes the comment technical and not editorial.
(b) The comment is out of scope, since no relevant change was made at
the last recirculation.
The only problem I can see, is the initialization of the IV for DES,
which should be solved in a different way at the errata stage.
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Itzik Kitroser
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:34 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of
P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
Dear All,
I would like to start rising issues with the current comments.
First issue is comment #405.
The commenter is requesting to add the following sentence to the draft
"If the number of bands is less than or equal to 12, it is the same as
the original one. However, if it is 24 (1024 FFT in 10 MHz), two
contiguous bands are paired and 12 logical bands are newly defined.
Hence, band (2n) and band (2n+1) are paired and the paired band is the
n-th band."
I really don't understand this kind of comment with the context of TGd,
since we don't have 1024 FFT in the standard.
I would like to receive clarification on this, or better, a withdrawal
of the comment.
Regards,
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:17 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] +++Voting Process on Approval of P802.16-REVd/D5
Recirculation Comments Now Open; Deadline of 5 June
When I posted the P802.16-REVd/D5 Recirculation comments, I said that
I would announce the on-line comment resolution process in a few days
and told you to expect the decision-making process to be quick. I
hope you have had time to read the comments.
The process is described in IEEE 802.16-04/31
<http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_31.pdf>. Members of the IEEE
802.16 Working Group <http://ieee802.org/16/members.html> are the
members of the Ballot Resolution Committee and eligible to vote. They
should read IEEE 802.16-04/31 for details. It explains the need to
make a quick decision on these comments.
The voting deadline is 5 June AOE.
Regards,
Roger
>The P802.16-REVd Recirc #2 balloting period has closed.
>
>The good news is that we are down to one Disapprove voter (Nico van
>Waes). He submitted one Technical Binding comment, which was a
>reiteration of a previous comment.
>
>The bad news is that we received a total of 171 comments.
> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/04/80216-04_30.zip
>
>The following show the members of the Sponsor Ballot Group who
>submitted comments, along with the number of comments:
>
>Tal Kaitz 2
>Itzik Kitroser 11
>Yigal Leiba 44
>Cor van de Water 3
>Nico van Waes 1
>
>I received additional comments from other individuals who do not
>belong to the Sponsor Ballot Group:
>
>Raja Banerjea 3
>Changhoi Koo 68
>Lalit Kotecha 14
>Wonil Roh 25
>
>
>We will now move on to an on-line comment resolution process in
>which the members of the Ballot Resolution Committee will be the
>Members of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group. I will provide details in
>a few days. Expect the decision-making process to be quick.
>
>For those of you who are wondering where this leaves us: we have met
>the RevCom conditions for D5 to be approved as an IEEE standard on
>24 June. If we reject all of these comments, no further
>recirculation will be necessary. However, we also have the option to
>accept comments, produce draft D6, open a third recirculation, and
>remove D5 from the June RevCom agenda.
>
>Roger