CommentID~CommenterName~CommenterEmail~CommenterPhone~CommenterFax~CommenterCo~Clause~Subclause~Page~Line~CommentType~Comment~SuggestedRemedy~Response~CommentStatus~ResponseStatus
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~05~5.3.3~13~~E~The transmit and receive masks (Clause 5.3.5) should appear beforeSpectrum factor (Clause 5.3.3) because the spectrum factor is calculated using Table 6 given in Clause 5.3.5.~Rearrange them.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~05~5.3.6.2~15~7~E~It should read "In the case of a 802.11b 1 Mbit/s chip ..."~correct it.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~05~5.3.3~13~~T~Do you need this Clause? Although Spectrum factor is shown in Figure 3,it doesn't seem to be used anywhere else.~This Clause needs some clarification. Add another Figure or Table showing the BER with different frequency offsets (spectrum factors) with a fixed value of transmit power and/or path loss.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~05~5.4.1.1~19~~E~The definition of GFSK signal can be found in most textbooks.It is not necessary to have it here.~Shorten it.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~05~5.4.2.2~22~40~E~5.5 Mbit/s CCK has already been specified in the IEEE standards so the reference to Halford[B13] can be removed.~Remove the reference.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~05~5.4.2.3~23~37~E~Typo: c7 should be -e^(j phi1+phi2).(c = [c1 c2 ... c8])~correct it.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~05~Figure 12~26~~T~There should be a comparison for 5.5 Mbps 802.11b as well because the sub-optimal receiver is used instead of the optimal one.Comparison with QPSK is not necessary.~Add figure for 5.5 Mbps 802.11b.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~05~5.4~~~TR~To better compare performance degradation of 802.11b (11 and 5.5 Mbps) due to Bluetooth interference, there should be a comparison using the same receiver architecture (ie, optimal receiver - correlator). It is hard to do the comparison with different sub-optimal receivers.~Add results on optimal receiver performance.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~06~~29~8~E~Undefined reference [tilde]\cite{Bluet99}~Correct it.~~X~O
0~Chindapol, Aik~aik.chindapol@icm.siemens.com~858-521-3546~~Siemens~11~Figure 43, 45, 46~~~E~These Figures are hard to read~replace them.~~X~O