Comment Status Report
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	123	00	1
	Comment
	The abstract states that this document fulfils an 802.19 rule. Actually it fulfills an 802 rule.
	SuggestedRemedy
	Change "IEEE 802.19 Task Group" to "IEEE 802 P&P"
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT. 
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	124	00	3
	Comment
	The second paragraph states that the 802.19 TAG mandates a CA document. Actually it is mandated by the 802 P&P.
	SuggestedRemedy
	Change the second paragraph to read "The IEEE 802 P&P mandates that new wireless standards"
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT. 
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 1 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	125	00	3
	Comment
	Once again the third paragraph states that it this is an 802.19 requirement.
	SuggestedRemedy
	Change "satisfy the requirements of the IEEE 802.19 Task Group" to "satisfy the requirements of the IEEE 802 P&P"
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT. 
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	T	126	00	4
	Comment
	The document states that the UWB PHY operates in three bands: 250-750 MHz, 3100-4800 MHz, and 6000-10600 MHz.  The lower of these three bands overlaps the TV broadcast bands.  Is this allowed by regulatory rules?  Are there any plans to analyze the effect of UWB on TV broadcast?
	SuggestedRemedy
	Answer the two questions
	Response
	ACCEPT. 
	1. Yes; License exempt operation is allowed as specified by FCC Part 15 subparts B and F. Certain applications may also operate under license or waiver issued by the appropriate regulatory agency on an application specific basis (e.g. safety of life applications such as emergency response, etc.).
	2. Yes, TG4a has discussed this issue with band incumbents and accordingly the next draft standard will be modified to stipulate a maximum transmit power for the sub-GHz UWB band suggested by band incumbents.
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 2 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	127	00	4
	Comment
	There is a missing value.  The document states "and X dBm for the CSS PHY"
	SuggestedRemedy
	Either fill in the value or drop that phrase.  Since it is a reference to the CSS it does not seem to be necessary in this document.
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT. 
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	T	128	00	6
	Comment
	It is stated that the only 802 standard that overlaps the UWB PHY is 802.16. Are there other wireless systems outside of 802 that should be considered (e.g. TV)?
	SuggestedRemedy
	Please answer the question.
	Response
	ACCEPT. We know of ECMA-0368 in the 3 to 10 GHz UWB bands. There are numerous services overlapped by the sub-GHz UWB band. Regulatory requirements such as US FCC Part 15 sub-parts B and F are specifically written to protect these services. 
	Additionally, the draft standard has been modified to stipulate a maximum transmit power for the sub-GHz UWB band suggested by band incumbents.
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 3 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	T	129	00	6
	Comment
	The document states that the analysis is based on BER versus SER and references 802.19-05/28r0.  The author may wish to see 802.19-05/28r2 which includes analysis based on BER.
	SuggestedRemedy
	See reference 802.19-05/28r2
	Response
	ACCEPT. 
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	130	00	8
	Comment
	This section is incomplete
	SuggestedRemedy
	Complete section 4.4
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT. 
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 4 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	131	00
	Comment
	The document is incomplete and does not contain any quantitative statements about coexistence of the UWB PHY and 802.16
	SuggestedRemedy
	Complete the document
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT.  
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	132	00	2
	Comment
	The document states that "while not required by the specification, IEEE 802.15.4 devices can be reasonably expected to coexist"  It is unclear what specification this is refereeing to.  Also it is unclear why a device operating in the 2.4 GHz band is not required to coexist with other wireless devices in that band.  FCC rules seem to imply otherwise.
	SuggestedRemedy
	Drop the statement about the devices not being required to coexist.
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT.
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 5 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	133	00	2
	Comment
	The document states that "the IEEE 802.19 TAG established some new procedures in 2005"  The rules were established by the 802 EC and it was done in 2004.
	SuggestedRemedy
	Change the statement to read  "In 2004 the 802 executive committee established a new procedure on coexistence, within the 802 P&P"
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT. 
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	134	00	2
	Comment
	The list of standard to which to evaluate coexistence does not include 802.11g.
	SuggestedRemedy
	Add 802.11g
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT. 
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 6 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	135	00	3
	Comment
	There is no statement on what is assumed in terms of duty cycle or typical packet duration for the various standards.  Those parameters have a significant effect on PER
	SuggestedRemedy
	Add statement on what is the typical packet duration and transmission duty cycle for the various standards.
	Response
	PROPOSED REJECT. The assumptions are stated on page 4. However, after a discussion with TAG 19, it was agreed that the draft will be changed such that the assumptions for 11b/g are: 1500 bytes, 50% duty cycle (b:5.5Mbs, g:22Mps)
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	136	00	6
	Comment
	The explanation for assuming a 1% duty cycle is based on the battery life time. This does not show that the duty cycle cannot be much higher than 1% over significant periods of time (e.g. 1 minute or 1 hour).  It seems that performing the analysis only at such low duty cycle is unwarranted.
	SuggestedRemedy
	Also include analysis that could be sustained by an application for an extended period of time (e.g. 1 minute).
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. Stay with the 1% duty cycle but add that “Under certain conditions duty cycle can go up to 10%“ and additionally add this 10% duty cycle analysis to the annex.
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 7 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	137	00	7
	Comment
	The PER plot does not specify what the 802.11b packet duration or duty cycle. Both of those parameters significantly affect PER
	SuggestedRemedy
	Specify the 802.11 packet duration and duty cycle.
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.   The original assumptions were stated on page 4. Upon discussion with TAG 19, it was agreed that the draft will be changed such that the assumptions for 11b/g are: 1500 bytes, 50% duty cycle (b:5.5Mbs, g:22Mps)
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	138	00	7
	Comment
	The dimensions of Foffset is not specified.  Assumingly it is in MHz
	SuggestedRemedy
	Specify dimensions
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT. It is MHz.
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 8 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	139	00	7
	Comment
	The only PER curve with 802.11b interference is with 20 MHz offset. There needs to be a co-channel PER plot or an explanation for why that will not occur
	SuggestedRemedy
	Add figure for co-channel 802.11b interference.
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.  TG4a believes that  co channel interference will not be typical. Upon discussion with TAG 19, it has been agreed that the draft will additionally include coexistence for a spacing of two channels.
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	140	00	10
	Comment
	The BT PER curve with CSS interference assumes only 1% duty cycle. Needs to be higher or and explanation is required
	SuggestedRemedy
	Include an analysis at a higher duty cycle that could be expected
	Response
	PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. The analysis between BT and CSS will be revised under the assumption that both systems are fast hoppers and/or assuming a duty cycle of 50% for BT.
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 9 of 10

	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	TR	141	00
	Comment
	This document considers coexistence with 802.11b but does not consider coexistence with 802.11g
	SuggestedRemedy
	Add analysis of coexistence with 802.11g.
	Response
	PROPOSED REJECT.  Please note that 11g is addressed in the note at the bottom of  page 4 of 15-06-0214-00-004a-css-ca-document.pdf.
	CommenterName	CommentType	CommentID	Clause	Subclause	Page	Line
	IEEE 802.19 TAG	T	142	00
	Comment
This PHY overlaps in frequency with the standard under development in 802.22, however, the CA document does not address coexistence with 802.22.  Even though 802.22 is still under development it would be highly desirable to see an evaluation with 802.22
	SuggestedRemedy
	Add an evaluation with the standard under development in 802.22.
	Response
	ACCEPT.    Even though 802.22 is not completely defined, our information is that 802.22 will include spectrum sensing which could be sufficient in itself. Additionally, the draft standard has been modified to stipulate a maximum transmit power for the sub-GHz UWB band suggested by band incumbents.
	Monday, May 22, 2006	Page 10 of 10