| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I would like to suggest to extend the deadline for submission of improvements. The format of submission could be in the form of a contribution that can be discussed in the May meeting.
My initial suggestions on the improvement of the resolution results are listed below. I plan to submit further suggestions and details for discussions during the upcoming meeting in May.
1) Multiple comments on 1.25 MHz channelization: As PAR has included this as an example, the 802.20 standards draft should be able to address this scenario. Even 625 kHz channelization is supported by the standards draft, why can't 1.25 MHz be supported?
2) Comment #20: I agree with ETRI's comment on the support of both channelization simultaneously in a superframe, so that users with various channel conditions can be benefited.
3) Comment #22: I agree with ETRI's comment that the issue of uplink PAPR is very important for mobile terminals. The resolution stated that there were concerns about DFT spread OFDM, but it shows that insufficient study has been done by the proponents to compare between the two waveform designs. With clipping and filtering, there will be out-of-band spectral regrowth and in-band distortion which will degrade the error rate performance. It is not clear that this is the optimum approach. Spectral efficiency may also be decreased because of additional guard subcarriers required to accomodate the increased out-of-band emission due to clipping.
4) Comment #49: This comment is not out-of-scope, as transmitter and receiver specifications are stated as part of the 802.20 system requirements.
5) Comment #426: The multicarrier scenario is not really flexible enough. The draft should be modified so as to support other more flexible multicarrier scenarios.
6) Comment #428: Then the number of quasi-guard subcarrier should be allowed to be different from guard subcarriers
Besides, there are about 12 different comments for which the proponents may provide additional information. Would that information be available as contributions for the May meeting?
Best regards,
Anna.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry1upton@AOL.COM [mailto:Jerry1upton@AOL.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 4:44 PM
To: STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802-20-GENERAL:] Letter Ballot 1 Proposed Comment Resolutions Posted
All,
The Letter Ballot 1 proposed Comment Resolutions are posted in the Members only section of the website. Also a revised Draft is posted based on the proposed Comment Resolutions.
The Comment Resolution Committee members reviewed all posted resolutions. The members of the committee are:
Jerry Upton: 802.20 WG Chair
Mark Klerer: WG Technical Editor
Doug Knisely: WG Procedural Vice Chair
Radhakrishna Canchi: WG Liaison Vice Chair & Technology Proposal submitter
Jim Tomcik: Technology Proposal submitter
Michael Youssefmir: Technology Proposal submitter
Heesoo Lee: Technology Proposal submitter
All members of 802.20 have access to the comments, comment resolutions and the updated drafts regardless of their voting status for Letter Ballot 1. All Members may send their suggested comment resolution improvements to the Editor, Mark Klerer, and Chair. All suggested improvements are requested by close of business on May 4, 2006.
Additionally, all No voters in Letter Ballot 1 will be contacted individually to address the resolutions of their negative ballot comments.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
Chair 802.20
jerry.upton@ieee.org