Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Discussion for 20/1288 (TCIR) and the motion

Hi Rui Du,

 

Thank you for reaching out for comments. I apologize for missing your comment collection before.

 

Regarding the motion (#49) you proposed, I have a few concerns:

  1. It is not clear to me why the frequency domain CSI is not sufficient for sensing? If the concern is about feedback overhead, it would be better to consider additional reduction based on the existing compressed CSI feedback.  To generate the time domain CSI, the sensing receiver may need additional processing power, which would not be desirable.  
  2. The first sub-bullet of the motion text  (“Calculating the CIR (time domain) from frequency domain CSI through IDFT(usually, IFFT)” ) appears an implementation. Is your intention to mandate this operation at sensing receivers?
  3. In the second sub-bullet of the motion, you have “complex samples corresponding to the range of interest of the entire CIR”. I am not sure how the “entire CIR” is defined and if it can be defined consistently among different sensing receivers. In addition, from your early contributions, it clears to me that this set of complex numbers (i.e., PDP?) may vary a lot depending on the algorithm at the sensing receiver (e.g., grouping size and timing relationship among those numbers). So, the question is how you can guarantee the consistency of the measurements from different sensing receivers.  

 

In general, I believe we should not ask sensing receivers, which need to feedback sensing measurement results, to process CSI for a measurement that we cannot ensure the consistency of its meaning and reference value over time and among different sensing devices.  

 

Best regards,

Ray

 

From: durui (D) <000017788cb650b9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:44 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Discussion for 20/1288 (TCIR) and the motion

 

Dear all,

 

I am sending this email to initiate a discussion on the contribution 21/1288 Truncated Power Delay Profile(Truncated Channel Impulse Response) - follow up and motion 49 I ran yesterday.

 

Actually, I already tried to collect as much opinions as possible from the group member before the motion, and I thought I’ve discussed thoroughly with the group members who feedback their concerns or questions. I was surprised with the motion results.

 

Hence, I would like to discuss if there is any further concerns. Please feel free to let me know (by 11bf reflector or private email) your thoughts and any suggestions for the contribution and the motion.

 

Best wishes,

Rui Du

 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1