1 / 21

Response to Optional CoU and CS Pulses Related Comments

This document discusses comments related to optional CoU and CS pulses and provides responses to those comments. It addresses concerns about complexity and inter-operability.

amandamartin
Télécharger la présentation

Response to Optional CoU and CS Pulses Related Comments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Response to optional CoU and CS pulses related comments] Date Submitted: [March 7, 2006] Source: [Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno] Company [National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)] Contact: Huan-Bang Li. Voice:[+81 46 847 5104, E-Mail: lee@nict.go.jp] Abstract: [Discussion on comments related to optional CoU and CS pulse and response to the comments] Purpose: [To help the discussion for answering no-vote comments to 15.4a draft] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.

  2. Response to Optional CoU and CS Pulses Related Comments Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)

  3. Contents • General concerned issues • Complexity • Inter-operability • Response to comments one-by-one • 8 TR-comments • 5 T-comments • 8 E-comments.

  4. Two General Concerned Issues • Complexity • Do the optional pulse shapes increase complexity? • Inter-operability • How can devices with optional pulse shapes communicate with other devices?

  5. Limited Complexity • Optional pulse shapes can increase the number of SOP and/or enhance SOP performance. Optional pulses also help mandatory-only pulse in a way that they reduce the interference level between each other. • Optional pulse shapes are not required to be installed for all 15.4a devices. No complexity increase for devices operated with only mandatory pulse. • Installation of optional pulse shape is limited to devices that seek the advantages of optional pulses.

  6. Guaranteed Inter-Operability • Operation on a optional pulse can only be validated in a piconet where all devices are implemented with the pulse shape and PAN coordinator approves the operation. • Besides the optional pulses, all devices are installed with the mandatory pulse. They can talk with other devices on the mandatory pulse anytime required. • A PAN coordinator keeps ‘listening’ to the channel even when the piconet is operated with an optional pulse. It can switch the piconet to mandatory pulse when required.

  7. Response To Comments • Technical required comments • Technical comments • Editorial comments

  8. Technical Required Comments (1) • No.441 • The y scales of the graph are not defined. What are these? • Response: The axis is ‘amplitude’. • Remedy: Add ‘amplitude’ to the y axis of the graph. (Fig. 27h) • No.442 • The Greek letter mu is already in use in this standard for a different quantity. • Pick a different letter. • Remedy: Replace ‘mu’ with ‘beta’ (Page 37, Line 4 - 5 and Table 39I) • No.443 • “will remain the same” is not strong enough. • Change to “shall be the same”. • Remedy Change as suggested. (page 36 and 37)

  9. *f Technical Required Comments (2) • No.444 • 'tau(f) is not in units of seconds/Hz, it is units of seconds. If, on the other hand you are describe a constant tau that is multiplied by frequency as opposed to a function tau that has frequency as a parameter, then the constant would indeed have units of second/Hz • 'Remove references to tau(f) and replace with tau * f • Remedy: Change as suggested. (Page 37, Equation o-2 and the line under it)

  10. Technical Required Comments (3) • No.610 and No.611 • The standard as produced is really complicated for a sensor application. Furthermore, optional pulse shapes and the like will thwart true standardization, as equipment built with the different pulse shapes will not be compatible. To simplify, I suggest eliminating all optional pulse shapes. This applies both to the chaotic pulses and the continuous time pulses. • One can only install the mandatory pulse if this meets the requirements. • Optional pulse shapes only need to be installed when one want to take the advantages provided by the optional pulses. • Inter-operability is guaranteed because FFD keep listening with the mandatory pulse even when operated in optional modes.

  11. Technical Required Comments (3) • No.762 • Interroperation of chirp-capable nodes with non-chirp capable nodes needs to be clarified. It appears that the two modes are completely incompatible, creating what is essentially yet another alternate PHY. • Interoperation is guaranteed because FFD keep listening with the mandatory pulse even when operated in optional modes. When both chirp-capable nodes and non-chirp capable nodes exist in a piconet, the piconet can only operate with the mandatory pulse. • No.865 • These pulses need to support reception by the non-coherent receiver (need to have same pulse or symbol duration and bandwidth, etc). • An option will only be validated in a piconet that all devices are installed with this option and the coordinator approves the use of this option. Default demodulation is coherent.

  12. Technical Comments (1) • No.725 • It is unfortunate that we have an additional channel frequency table. Can this somehow be integrated into the existing frequency channel plan? • Response: These are additional channels provided by the CoU option in addition to FDM. • Remedy: To distinguish from the representation of FDM channels, replace Ch.# by CCH.#. (Chirping CH). (Table 39I)

  13. Technical Comments (2) • No.727 • Are of the parameters of table 39m represented in the MLME/PLME/MAC commands? • To be added. (Section 6.2? Table 23?) • No.728 • Problem in notation between Equation 2 and Figure 27j. • This may only be editorial ... is there an argument change between equation 2 and Figure 27j? • Response: The argument is ‘tau’. • Remedy: Rewrite the sentence as “… and some examples generated using Equation (o-2) are shown in Figure 27j”.

  14. Table 23

  15. Technical Comments (3) • No.866 • Need details on how the transmitter and receiver will negotiate the use of the chirp pulses • Response: This is controlled by PAN coordinator. • No.867 • For CS pulses, does the TX filtering affect the receiver performance? How does the receiver know which pulse shape to expect? • Response: To add description at PLME.

  16. Editorial Comments (1) • No.143 • Add "CoU", and all other new acronyms and abbreviations, to clause 4. • Remedy: Add as suggested. • No.255 • Be sure to add "SOP" to clause 4, Acronyms and Abbreviations. • Remedy: Add as suggested. • No.272 • third paragraph; Which Equation (1)? • Remedy: Change to Equation (o-1). (Page 36, above the graph)

  17. Editorial Comments (2) • No.273 • SI unit for nanoseconds is ns • Remedy: Replace ‘nsec’ with ‘ns’. (Figure 27j) • No.274 • second paragraph; What is this jumble of words trying to state? • Remedy: Rewrite the paragraph to “Group delay values used for this option is listed in Table 39m. Each 500MHz band can use No.1 and No.2 pulses, while Each 1.5GHz band can use No.3 through No.6 pulses.” (Page 38) • No.440 • Equation (1) is the wrong cross reference. • Remedy: Replace ‘Equation (1)’ by ‘Equation (o-1)’

  18. Editorial Comments (3) • No.588 • 1. Replace 'Equation (1)' by 'Equation (o-1)'. 2. Replace 'chirped DS pulse' by 'CoU pulse'. • Remedy: Change as suggested. • No.726 • I guess I don't understand the concept behind continuous spectrum pulses. Perhaps a little bit of explanation as to why these pulses are continuous. For example, what is a non-continuous spectrum pulse? • Response: This pulse shape is generated by passing a mandatory pulse through a filter with controlled group delay characteristics over the signal bandwidth. It is a group delay controlled pulse.

  19. Conclusion • Comments on optional pulses are reviewed and remedy to these comments are discussed. • A lot of comments concern complexity and inter-operability. These comments can be solved by the motion adopted at Hawaii meeting. • Next step

More Related