CommentID~CommenterName~CommenterEmail~CommenterPhone~CommenterFax~CommenterCo~Clause~Subclause~Page~Line~CommentType~Comment~SuggestedRemedy~Response~CommentStatus~ResponseStatus
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~01~1~1~4954~E~the three sentances need and introduction. Or perhaps "the scope... is" Bullet 1 "To ..." Also note that on page 2 it starts "The scope of this document...".  Are lines 40-54 really needed?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~00~~~~TR~The document specifies three "recommended" approaches.  1- No where does it state if that there is compliance between devices if two vendors choose two different approaches2- If these are recommendations, what happens if a vendor implements a non-standard approach?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~01~1~2~7~T~Paragraph  1.1 has 2 Mbit/s specified.  Why the comment?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.1~6~1215~E~redo "The IEEE 802.11 MAC incorporates automatic repeat request (ARQ) to insure reliable delivery of dataacross the wireless link. So there is little chance that the data will be lost. The effect the interference has onthe WLAN is that the delivered data throughput decreases and the network latency increases. Depending onthe application this may or may not be tolerable."~The IEEE 802.11 MAC incorporates automatic repeat request (ARQ) to insure reliable delivery of data across the wireless link, without data loss. A interference increases, the network latency increases, and  data throughput decreases. ~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.1~6~54~E~The word "for say 100 ms" should be "for example 100 msec"~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.1~7~1~E~"So the odds are that" should be deleted~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.1~7~1215~E~redo "The IEEE 802.11 MAC incorporates automatic repeat request (ARQ) to insure reliable delivery of dataacross the wireless link. So there is little chance that the data will be lost. The effect the interference has onthe WLAN is that the delivered data throughput decreases and the network latency increases. Depending onthe application this may or may not be tolerable."~The IEEE 802.11 MAC incorporates automatic repeat request (ARQ) to insure reliable delivery of data across the wireless link, without data loss. A interference increases, the network latency increases, and  data throughput decreases. ~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.2~7~1923~E~ Most implementations allow either manual or automatic modification of the data rate.~Most implementations allow manual or automatic modification of the data rate~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.2~7~2122~E~This line makes no sense- The higher rates are desirable for many applications but the distance of transmission using the higher rates is less than that of the lower rates. ~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.2~7~25~E~There is a potential packet collision between a WLAN packetand an interfering 802.15.1 packet any time the WPAN hops into the WLAN passband.~There is a potential packet collision between a WLAN packetand an 802.15.1 packet when the WPAN hops into the WLAN passband.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.2~7~2627~E~the following sentance makes no senseSince the bandwidth of the 802.11b WLAN is 22 MHz, as the WPAN hops around the ISM band 22 of the 79 WPAN channels fall within the WLAN passband.~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.2~7~32~E~where is the detailed interfence model? (place reference in text)~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.2~7~3540~E~reword One of the important issues that effects the level of interference is the WLAN automatic data rate scaling. Ifit is implemented and enabled it is possible for the WPAN interference to cause the WLAN to scale to alower data rate. At a lower data rate the temporal duration of the WLAN packets is increased. This increasein packet duration can lead to in increase in packet collisions with the interfering WPAN packets. In someimplementations, this can lead to yet a further decrease in the WLAN data rate. This can result in theWLAN scaling down its data rate to 1 Mbit/s.~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.3~4~52~E~specify where the model is located-The detailed model described later quantifies the level of packeterror rate.~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.3~7~51~E~changeBoth frequency-hopping systems are usually only susceptible to interference on the channel in use andthe two adjacent channels.~Both frequency-hopping systems are susceptible to interference on the channel in use andthe two adjacent channels.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.3~8~37~E~change So with limited packet error rate the ACL link will have asmall decrease in network throughput and a small increase in network latency. However, for delivery of voice IEEE 802.15.1 uses a synchronous connection-oriented (SCO) link. The SCO link does not support automatic repeat request. As a result there will be some perceivable degradation in voice quality over an SCO link in the presence of 802.11 FH interference.The detailed model described later quantifies the level of packet error rate. The802.11b represents a worse interferer than the 802.11 FH. For data transfer the network throughput woulddecrease and the network latency would increase, in the presence of 802.11b interference. The packet errorrate for SCO link can cause voice quality degradation.~toIEEE 802.15.1 voice communications use a synchronous connection-oriented (SCO) link. Since the SCO link does not supportautomatic repeat request,there will be some perceivable degradation in voice quality dyuring periods of IEEE 802.11 FH interference.The detailed model described later quantifies the level of packet error rate. The network throughput woulddecrease and the network latency would increase for 802.11b interference. A  A large number of errors on an SCO link can cause voice quality degradation.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.3~9~812~E~reword -In addition, bycarefully scheduling packet transmission so that the IEEE 802.15.1 devices transmit during hops that areoutside the WLAN frequencies and refrain from transmitting while in-band, interference to WLAN systemscould be avoided/minimized and at the same time increase the throughput of the IEEE 802.15.1 systems.~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.4~8~1119~E~change IEEE 802.15.1 uses frequency hopping spread spectrum, while IEEE 802.11b is a frequency-static systemthat uses direct sequence spread spectrum and complementary code keying. The bandwidth of 802.11b isabout 22 MHz so of the 79 channels that 802.15.1 hops over, approximately 22 of those channels are subjectto interference, depending on signal power levels.18The detailed model described later quantifies the level of packet error rate. The802.11b represents a worse interferer than the 802.11 FH. For data transfer the network throughput woulddecrease and the network latency would increase, in the presence of 802.11b interference. The packet errorrate for SCO link can cause voice quality degradation.Since a frequency hopping system is susceptible not onlyon the channel it is operating, but also the adjacent channels, the 22 channels susceptible channels could beincrease to 24 channels.~to IEEE 802.15.1 uses frequency hopping spread spectrum, while IEEE 802.11b uses direct sequence spread spectrum and complementary code keying. The bandwidth of 802.11b is 22 MHz.  22 of the 79 hopping channels available to IEEE 802.15.1 hops are subjectto interference.  A frequency hopping system is susceptible to interference from the adjacent channels. This increases the total number of  interference channels from 22 to 24.161718The detailed model described later quantifies the level of packet error rate. The802.11b represents a worse interferer than the 802.11 FH. For data transfer the network throughput woulddecrease and the network latency would increase, in the presence of 802.11b interference. The packet errorrate for SCO link can cause voice quality degradation.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~2~3335~~E~change Similarly, changes in the behavior of the MAC layer protocol and the associated datatraffic distribution could play an important factor in the interference scenario and affect the overall systemperformance.~to Changes in the behavior of the MAC layer protocol and the associated datatraffic distribution impact the interference scenario and  the overall system performance.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~2~8~25~E~remove the word "respectively".  With respect to what?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~2~8~3132~E~change impact the performance of higher layer applicationsand the MAC layer.~to impact the performance of higher layers.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~3~8~4143~E~changeCollaborative is defined as a coexistence mechanism where WPAN andWLAN exchange information between one another to minimize mutual interference while Non-Collaborativeis defined as a coexistence mechanism where no exchange of information is used between two wirelessnetworks.~Collaborative is defined as a coexistence mechanism where WPAN andWLAN exchange information r to minimize mutual interference.  Non-Collaborative is defined as a coexistence mechanism where no exchange of information  between two wirelessnetworks occur.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~8~29~~E~change The MAC layer models are interfaced to these PHY models,~to-The MAC layer models  interface to these PHY models,~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~05~3.6~14~36~E~This is then converted into an effective BER given the number of bits per symbol.~Given the number of bits per symbol, the SER is converted into an effective BER.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~05~4.1.2~20~2728~E~This sampling rate is appropriate for f dup to 22 MHz. A uniform random delay t d = [0,T) and a random phase~This sampling rate for f dup to 22 MHz  is appropriate. ~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~05~4.1~19~1~TR~what is meant by  '79(23)'?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~05~4~18~3234~E~In this subclause, the modeling of the physical layers of the IEEE 802.15.1 and IEEE 802.11b (WLAN) sys-temsare discussed, and then their bit error rate performances in interference-limited environments are exam-ined.~In this subclause, the modeling of the physical layers of the IEEE 802.15.1 and IEEE 802.11b (WLAN) systemsare discussed,.  Followed an examoination of  the bit error rate performances in interference-limited environments.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~05~4~18~3637~E~delete "The resulting performance curves are quite accurate, butthey are obtained at the expense of significant computation."~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~05~4~18~4142~E~The outline of the clause is as follows: subclause 5.4.1 describes the model for IEEE 802.15.1, while sub-clause5.4.2 does the same for 802.11b.~The outline of the clause is as follows: subclause 5.4.1 describes the model for IEEE 802.15.1 and  sub-clause 5.4.2 describes the model for for 802.11b.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~05~4~18~4445~E~Some of the text and the figures have been taken from Soltanian [B14],which also contains additional results for flat fading channels.~ Soltanian [B14] contains additional results for flat fading channels.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~01~2~2~13~E~the sentance talks about a project.  Isn't this a recommendation, like stated in line 18?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~01~2~2~20~E~what is "IEEE 802.119 WLAN"?~try IEEE 802.11b WLAN~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~01~2~2~2527~E~line 5 states "This document defines several coexistence mechanisms.." The next sentance states "This recommended practice defines two classes of coexistence mechanisms".  This is confusing.  Are three two classes of several types?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~10~1~42~34~E~The PTA technique howevercoordinates sharing of the medium on dynamically, based on the traffic load of the two wireless networks.~The PTA technique coordinates sharing of the medium on dynamically, based on the traffic load of the two wireless networks.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~10~2~42~35~E~Change the double arrow to two inward pointing arrows.  I thought the double arrow was a diamond.~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~10~3.8~57~29~T~is this a recommended practice or a standard?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~10~4.2~61~317~T~figure 42 has a legond of 8 items, but only 7 curves~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~10~4~42~5~E~the word "dynamically" is an adverb.  What is it modifying?"The PTA technique howevercoordinates sharing of the medium on dynamically, based on the traffic load of the two wireless networks."~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~10~4~5859~4217~E~title in figures 39 and 40 have extra period after "nulling"~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~11~3.1~69~1~TR~the values in "error rate is [approximately] 24% for DM5 and DM3, and 19% for and DM1 packets," are not supported in figure 48~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~11~3.1~69~910~E~Note that,when bad channels are used, packets are dropped and have to be retransmitted, which yields large delays.~When bad channels are used, dropped packets are retransmitted,  yielding large delays.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~11~3~68~20~E~figure 48 legand states "wo" it should be "w/o"~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.1.1~70~47~E~12.1.1.1 RSSI~12.1.1.1. received signal strength indication (RSSI)~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.1.1~71~68~E~the term "RSSI has been low the error(s) nature is propagation effects" and "RSSI has been high the error(s) nature is interference" makes no sense? inFor example, if the packet has not been decoded successfully and RSSI has been lowthe error(s) nature is propagation effects. On the other hand if the packet has not been decoded successfullybut RSSI has been high the error(s) nature is interference.~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.1.2~71~19~T~any time slot or odd time slots? in "any receiving time slot (i.e., each odd time slot)"~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.1.2~71~20~T~don't all packets have access codes and headers? "These packets (during connection) contain at least an access code and a header."~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.1.2~71~21~T~you state "failure to synchronize the access code (or access code correlator fails)" in line 13.  In 21 you only use "if the access code correlator fails,".  Does line 21 have an incomplete list?~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.1.2~71~3031~E~or profilefor BER (Bit Error Rate).~or BER (Bit Error Rate)profile~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.1.2~71~3335~E~This paragraphs repeats the first paragraph.  It should be deleted.~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.1~70~41~E~(usually a bit map standing for conditions of different channels) will be used to compile a final list of good~(a bit map standing for conditions of different channels) will be used to compile a final list of good~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.2.3~73~9~E~remove "(say 0.55)"~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.2.4~73~19~E~This will, however, compromise the accuracy of the measurements at each channel.~This will compromise the accuracy of the measurements at each channel.~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1.2~72~1~T~if you are offline, how can you collect anything?"The channel classification can be performed by blocks, during the connection state or offline."~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~12~1~70~3033~E~run on sentance-"Since there may bevendor-specific variations and even implementations besides the examples described here, to qualify andaccept a channel classification implementation should call for an objective criterion, and even a testing pro-cedure,which are beyond the scope of this clause."~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1.1~6~610~E~The example does not support  the text.  In fact the example appears not to be an example~~~X~O
0~chickinsky, alan~achickinsky@northropgrumman.com~70363383008554~~northropgrumman~04~1~6~11~E~In section 1 it states the scope of this document is " 802.11b and 803.15.2"  But on line 11 we state "For example, both IEEE 802.11b and IEEE 802.15.1"  like the document addressed more than 802.11 and 802.15.2.~~~X~O