| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello All, As I was not able to attend the last 11aj conf call, I would like to raise some comments/questions on the usage models noted in 12/1245r0 (and 12/1244r0):
1)
Usage model 7: what is the difference between this usage model and the one from 11ad (09/583r0)?
2)
Usage models 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, and 9a:
a.
in all these models, there are statements such as “As the 45GHz frequency band has better propagation characteristics than the 60 GHz frequency band, link distance will be larger and power consumption will be lower when devices operate
in Chinese 45GHz frequency band.” This is not text that is supposed to be in a usage model. Usage models describe environments, traffic, requirements, etc., but do not describe what spectrum to use, what solution is better than another, etc. Usage models are
often technology/spectrum neutral. So, I would suggest to remove this text from each of the usage models listed above.
b.
Similarly to 2(a) above, there is text in the usage models stating “High performance links (2.16GHz bandwidth channel) can carry high throughput traffic, and low-power links(Chinese 1.08GHz bandwidth channel) can carry traffic with
lower power requirement.” Again, this is not text appropriate for a usage model. Not only that, this speculates on the benefits of a solution tied to given band, which I am sure not everyone would agree. For the same reasons above, I would propose to have
this text removed as well from all usage models.
c.
In general, any text that prescribes a given band, or that compares that one band is better than another for power/throughput, etc., needs to be removed, since they don’t belong to usage model descriptions. Thanks, Carlos. -----Original Message----- Hi Folks, As to the usage model 8a, when we talk about portable devices, do we need to seperate mobile devices (small footsize devices, such as cellular phone, Ipod) and normal portable devices (relatively large size devices, tablet pad, laptop,
etc.)? As we know, for small footsize devices, antenna array size and power comsuption limitaions/reqirements are quite different from those of large footsize portable devices. Given the boom and diversity of portable devices, maybe it is wise
to seperate into two categories (of course how to classify into two categories needs more discussion.) I think these two usage models will affect the function requirements on link budget and performance requirement. It will also may help for future implementation
on cost and flexibility. Any thoughts are very welcome. Thanks, Jianhan Liu Mediatek USA _______________________________________________________________________________ If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect. Instead, go to
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-tgaj and then press the LEAVE button. Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect. Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-tgaj and then press the LEAVE button. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ |