CommentID~CommenterName~CommenterEmail~CommenterPhone~CommenterFax~CommenterCo~Clause~Subclause~Page~Line~CommentType~Comment~SuggestedRemedy~Response~CommentStatus~ResponseStatus
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~00~~~~E~Significant formatting problems.  The headings that appear in the  Acrobat menu are completely inappropriate.~Make sure heading styles are consistent and used appropriately.~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~04~4.1~6~12~E~"For example, both IEEE 802.11b and IEEE 802.15.1 operate in the same    2.4 GHz Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band."  This may    be a minor point, but it is not relevant to refer to the 2.4 GHz    band as an ISM band, because the devices to which we refer are not    ISM devices.  ISM, according to the FCC is "equipment or    appliances designed to generate and use radio frequency (RF)    energy to perform some work other than telecommunications."  The    ISM band is actually 2400-2500 MHz, while the Part 15 band, the    relevant rule section in the US, is 2400-2483.5 MHz.   References to ISM bands occur in other places as well, for example Section 12.~Refer to the bands as unlicensed, or license free, 2.4 GHz bands.~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~04~4.1.1~7~10~E~"effects" should be "affects"~Change to "affects"~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~04~4.1.4~8~16~E~"increase" should be "increased"~Change to "increased"~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~05~5.1~9~50~E~"Figure 1-." should be "Figure 1."~Change the formatting for references to figures.  This occurs throughout the document.~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~05~5.3.6.3~16~18~E~The word "gray" in "gray coded" should be capitalized.~Capitalize "gray".~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~05~5.4.4~28~32~E~"The performance for 802.11 interference" should be "The   performance for 802.11b interference."  Other work will need to be done to look at 802.11g, 802.11 frequency hopping, etc.~Change "802.11" to "802.11b."~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~06~~29~8~E~Fix "specifications~\cite{Bluet99}."~Fix the formatting for this reference.~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~09~~33~11~E~Should the references to "BT" be changed to 802.15.1?~Change references to 802.15.1.~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~09~9.1~36~18~T~The curve for scenario 3 may need some more explanation.  It is    clear that at short distances the 802.15.1 voice connection is    causing severe interference to the WLAN, blocking packets, and    increasing latency.  However, why would this peak at 1.5 m?  Why    isn't the effect worse at 0.5m and 1.0m?~Add explanation for the shape of this distribution.~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~11~~61~36~E~"The foundation for the effectiveness of these types of methods is    to be able to figure out the current channel conditions accurately    and timely."  Does this mean "in a timely manner?"~Change to "in a timely manner."~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~11~11.1.2~63~43~E~Several figures(43, 45) refer to Bluetooth throughput, rather than    802.15.1.~Change references from Bluetooth to 802.15.1.~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~00~~~~E~There are very few explicit "recommendation" sections.  (An    exception would be section 10.1.)  That being the case, should all    statements in the document be taken as recommendations?  For    example, in section 5.4.3 it says "This result is not surprising,    since the CCK provides a higher bit rate but occupies the same 22    MHz bandwidth, thereby having less of a coding gain. Generally,    the receivers used for both 1 Mbit/s and 11 Mbit/s are fairly    simple, and improved performance can most likely be obtained    using more sophisticated signal processing. This fact is    especially true for the 11 Mbit/s CCK system."  Is it, then, a    recommendation from IEEE that improved signal processing be used    in 11 Mbps 802.11 DS devices in order to reduce their sensitivity    to interference from 802.15.1 devices?~Make the recommendations more specific.~~X~O
0~Chinitz, Leigh~LChinitz@Proxim.Com~781-772-1317~240-460-3257~Proxim~00~~~~T~In all of the coexistence simulation modeling, for example in    section 9, there are many figures showing the effect on throughput    and delay of various interference scenarios.  In section 10,    though, which discusses collaborative mitigation techniques there    does not appear to be any discussion of the effect that these    techniques will have on throughput.  For example, AWMA in its    simplest implementation would allow 50% of the time for WLAN    transmissions, and 50% of the time for 802.11 transmissions.  This    should reduce the effective throughput by approximatly 50%.  Even    the PTA, which operates more dynamically, will reduce the    throughput of each of the systems according to the load being    offered by the other system.  Since this is recommended practices    document, such an effect should be explicitely stated.~Add some discussion in section 10 of the effect on user throughput of these mitigation techniques.~~X~O