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

Re: [STDS-802-16] [TGm] Comment resolution



Hi Wookbong,

 

I think I see why you are confused. For Part 2, the resolution is as follows:  

 

“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%.”

 

I don’t believe the second part suggests that we leave urban macrocell as mandatory. Since John’s contribution suggested changes in four configuration parameters for the urban macrocell scenario and we had decided to adopt only the mobility mix, the text specifically calls out the changes that need to be made.

 

The resolution only addresses the TBD value for the mobility mix for the optional urban macrocell scenario. Since the same mobility mix was proposed in comment #11, we were able to supercede #11 through this resolution.

 

Thanks.

 

Best Regards,

Roshni

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


From: Wookbong Lee [mailto:wbong@LGE.COM]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:28 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [TGm] Comment resolution

 

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]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 6:20 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [TGm] Comment resolution

 

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]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:22 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [TGm] Comment resolution

 

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]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:47 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [TGm] Comment resolution

 

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 "SRD Requirements must be met for TDD and FDD. Proponents are required to present performance results for the baseline configuration as defined in Table 3.

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