| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| Hi Everyone, The ballot for P1902.1 closed last weekend and we received unanimous approval from the balloting group. We should be on track to having the standard be formally issued in March 2009. Thank you all for your support in creating this world standard, and I hope you will be able to find the time to participate in additional RuBee related standards. We have one more item of business for 1902.1 and that is that, during the balloting process, we received a number of suggested changes for the document. These changes are all minor in nature, involving the addition of some clarifying footnotes at most. As an alternative to reconvening the Work Group to deal with these minor changes, I'm sending out the comments and my proposed changes to the document in order to address the comments. If you have comments or suggestions about my proposed changes, please "reply all" to this message (which will be reflected to all work group members). If you are happy with my proposal, no need to reply. If I do not receive a reply to this email before the end of the day on Monday November 3, I will take that as concurrence and proceed with the changes as described. Since changes will be made to the document, a 10 day recirculation period will be required during which time balloters may comment on the changes to the document. For those of you that are balloters as well as work group members, there is no need to reply to the recirculation as your positive vote from the initial ballot will carry forward through the recirculation, but of course you have comments on the changes, there is an opportunity to to comment during the recirculation period as well. Summary: 1. Proposed minor document changes below. 2. Reply before Monday Nov 3 if you have comments or suggestions. 3. There will be a 10 day recirculation of the draft for members of the balloting group to comment on the changes. - Rod Rod Gilchrist Co-chair P1902.1 Visible Assets 416 407-7879 Proposed P1902.1 document updates based on comments from the balloting group: 1. Page
7. 6. Data Protocol. Fifth paragraph, after first sentence, “Most
controller/responder… specific responder (i.e. Unicast)” add the
sentence. “This operation is also referred to as polling.“
Rationale. Polling is mentioned in footnote 2, but the context of polling is
never mentioned. Unicast messaging will be used for more than polling, therefore it is proposed not to make this modification. 2. Page
10. 6.2. 1 Sleep and listen states. Fifth paragraph, second sentence,…add a comma after interval.
Sentence should now read, “If there is no carrier for a time out interval,
the responder goes back to the sleep state.” 3. Page 13. Typing error: change “Ask” to “As” in the “Ask can be seen the recovered signal…” 4. Page 15. 9. Volume multiplexing, or Clip. Second paragraph, add text to the end so the second sentence now reads… “ Controllers must all transmit simultaneously and all addressed and enabled responders must also transmit simultaneously at a fixed time interval, 256*Tc, after the end of the controller request (per Table 3). Rationale-Clarifies operation and keeps consistent with rule given earlier (Table 3) and provides context for wording change in next paragraph. Also, 2*Tdc referencing Table 10 could be used instead of 256*Tc. 5. Page 15. 9. Volume multiplexing, or Clip. Third paragraph, replace “do not drown out” with “do not transmit at the same time”. Rationale-Clarifies the need for synchronizing controller and responder transmissions. This protocol is a half-duplex type of communication because it uses the same antenna and frequency for transmit and receive and only transmission or reception can be accomplished at any given time.. 6. Page 18. A.4 Real world measurements. The second paragraph states “ The 900 MHz data was taken using the power meter and a commercial RFID transmitter” However, the next paragraph “The P1902.1 data…” does not mention what device was used to make signal strength measurements, but it should. Rationale: I’m assuming they are different devices since one is measuring the electric field and the other measures the magnetic field. It is proposed to add the following footnote to the document to clarify how the 1902.1 signal was measured in this experiment. "In this experiment the 1902.1 signal was measured with a standard Visible Assets version 4.09 base station and Finder 9.1 software" |