| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Roshini,
Brian and Ramon, Maybe my
interpretation was wrong. The reason why
I said those two comments were contradictory is the first comment resolution
says “leave urban macrocell,” which was
mandatory option. As you
mentioned the comment resolution itself is not contradictory with comment 120L,
but I thought the interpretation of the comment #8 resolution part two implicitly
includes “leave urban macrocell as mandatory.” If the right
interpretation of the comment resolution of comment number 8 is “clean up TBDs in the Urban macrocell configuration” not “leave urban macrocell configuration for mandatory
option or not”, it is not contradictory. Thank you for
your clarification. BR, Wookbong Lee From:
Srinivasan, Roshni M [mailto:roshni.m.srinivasan@INTEL.COM] Wookbong, Ramon and all, The reason we split the vote
on the resolution for comment #8 and noted the results was because the comments
on test scenarios were not mutually exclusive and we were trying to address
multiple comments with a single resolution. The first part of the
asopted resolultion in comment #8 addressed the FDD issue, the NGMN
configuration and the choice of mandatory/optional scenarios. The second part
did not conflict with the decision in part 1. It simply addressed different
comments on the parameters of the urban macrocell model and cleaned up TBDs by
adding the mobility mix. I don’t believe the
comment and the resolution in 120L are conflicting with the resolution in #8.
The additional text that was adopted provides clarification as to what is
expected when simulating the baseline configuration. Since comment #120L
does not cover part 2 of comment #8, my understanding was that we could not
supercede comment #8 by #120L. Please feel free to
correct my interpretation if you see things differently. Thanks. Best Regards, Roshni From:
Ramon Khalona [mailto:rkhalona@NEXTWAVE.COM] Hi Wookbong and all, My reading of these
resolutions is that they are not contradictory because the first comment simply
adds the mobility mix to the urban macro-cell model and the second comment adds
the qualification that the urban macro-cell scenario is optional and that the
baseline model in Section 3.2.9 is mandatory. If I recall correctly, the
vote on the second comment was close (36 to 31 or something like that).
My problem with the second resolution is that the urban macro-cell model
is very important and more representative of urban environments where systems may be deployed.
Furthermore, having two models as mandatory (even though we may give the
baseline scenario in 3.2.9 precedence for performance comparison purposes,
especially with other technologies) can only be helpful to us. Ramon Khalona NextWave Broadband From:
Wookbong Lee [mailto:wbong@LGE.COM] Hi Brian and Roshini, I have a question for resolved comments, comment #8 and
comment #120 in 80216m-07_041r3.cmt. (Both are accept-modified.) In comment #8, the second part of resolution is Part 2: Leave Urban macrocell site-to-site
distance, channel model and propagation model unchanged. Mobility mix is 3
km/hr – 60%, 30 km/hr – 30%, 120 km/hr – 10%. 19 in favor 9 against And in comment #120L, the resolution of this comment is Adopt the baseline configuration as the only
mandatory test scenario. Replace the following text "For purposes of
FDD system evaluation, a TBD test scenario shall be used. Proponents are
required to present performance results for both mandatory test scenarios
defined in Table 3." By " Case 1: Baseline Configuration, uncorrelated
antennas at both BS and MS Case 2: Baseline Configuration, uncorrelated
antennas at MS, correlated antennas at BS (Section 3.2.9)" Change Urban macrocell model to Optional. Mark section 3.2.9 as mandatory. I think these
two comment resolutions are contradictory, since the first one clearly says
“leave Urban macrocell”, which is Mandatory for Urban macrocell, and the second
one says “change Urban macrocell
model to Optional”. The first one
(comment #8) resolved first, and the other (comment #120) was submitted and
resolved the day after the first one resolved. After the
first comment resolved, I think that the TG should resolve the late
comments as "superceded" or make a motion as "re-open
the first comment". I am confused
what the final resolution of these two comments is. Best Regards, Wookbong Lee |