1 / 42

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks ( WPANs)

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks ( WPANs) Submission Title: Proposed TMCTP related comment resolutions for TG4m Sponsor Ballot Date Submitted: September 19, 2013

kendra
Télécharger la présentation

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks ( WPANs)

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: Proposed TMCTP related comment resolutions for TG4m Sponsor Ballot Date Submitted: September 19, 2013 Source:Soo-Young Chang (SYCA), Jaehwan Kim (ETRI), Sangjae Lee (ETRI), YoungaeJeon (ETRI) , and SangsungChoi (ETRI) Contact: sychang@ecs.csus.edu Voice:+1-530-574-2741E-Mail: sychang@ecs.csus.edu Re: [802.15 TG4m] Abstract: This document provides proposed TMCTP resolutions for TG4m Sponsor Ballot. Purpose: To provides proposed resolutions for TMCTP related comments from TG4m sponsor ballot. 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. Comments regarding OFDM PHY • CID 35 • CID 36 • CID 43 • CID 45 • CID 61 • CID 62 • CID 64 • CID 66 • CID 69 • CID 73 • CID 76 • CID 80 • CID 83 • CID 85 • CID 121 • CID 122 • CID 123 • CID 125 • CID 132 • CID 133

  3. Proposed resolution of CID 35 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 4.2 page 5 line 8 • Comment • An FFD in a TMCTP can be a PAN coordinator or an SPC or merely a member of the network. • Proposed change from commenter • Change "operates as both the PAN coordinator and the super PAN coordinator (SPC)" to "can operate as a PAN coordinator or an SPC or merely a member of the network".

  4. Proposed resolution of CID 35 (2) • Proposed resolution • Reject • The sentence means that at least one FFD among multiple FFDs must be a PAN coordinator and an SPC in the TMCTP.

  5. Proposed resolution of CID 36 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 4.3.2 page 5 line 19 • Comment • The channel can be the same based on the coordinator geographic location. The sentence need to be modify. • Proposed change from commenter • Change the sentence to "Each PAN coordinator uses a channel allocated by the SPC"

  6. Proposed resolution of CID 36 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept in principle • Change to "Each PAN coordinator uses a different WPAN channel allocated by the SPC."

  7. Proposed resolution of CID 43 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 4.5.1.5 page 6 line 7 • Comment • How can the format of the TMCTP superframe be defined by the SPC?. • Proposed change from commenter • Add some words to describe a mechanism for the SPC to define the format.

  8. Proposed resolution of CID 43 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept In Principle • Change “The format of the TMCTP superframe is defined by the SPC ” to “The format of the TMCTP superframe is defined by the SPC which sends an enhanced beacon containing a TMCTP Specification IE, as in 5.2.4.35.”

  9. Proposed resolution of CID 45 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 4.5.1.5 page 6 line 11 • Comment • TMCTP-parent PAN coordinator can have multiple TMCTP-child PAN coordinators. • Proposed change from commenter • Change "between the TMCTP-parent PAN coordinator and the TMCTP-child PAN coordinator" to "between a TMCTP-parent PAN coordinator and one of its TMCTP-child PAN coordinator(s)"..

  10. Proposed resolution of CID 45 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept.

  11. Proposed resolution of CID 61 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1 page 9 line 7 • Comment • Why is TMCTP unique to TVWS operation? • Proposed change from commenter • n/a

  12. Proposed resolution of CID 61 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept in Principle • Delete "For TVWS operation," and change "when ~~" to "When ~~". • TMCTP concepts can be applied to other WPAN networks.

  13. Proposed resolution of CID 62 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1.3 page 9 line 15 • Comment • Does the BOP exist if there is no CFP? If so clarify the language so that we know where it would be. • Proposed change from commenter • Either add "The BOP requires the CFP be present' or add "when there is no CFP the BOP shall follow the CAP" depending on what is intended.

  14. Proposed resolution of CID 62 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept • Add “When there is no CFP, the BOP shall follow the CAP.“ after the first sentence starting “When present, …”.

  15. Proposed resolution of CID 64 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1.3 page 9 line 19 • Comment • Need to refine the first phrase. • Proposed change from commenter • Change "BOP slots" to " A fixed number of BOP slots".

  16. Proposed resolution of CID 64 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept in Principle • Change "BOP slots" to "DBSs in the BOP“.

  17. Proposed resolution of CID 66 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1.3 page 9 line 23 • Comment • "No beacon transmissions within the BOP shall use a CSMA-CA mechanism to access the dedicated channel" is awkward English and an unerifiable "shall". Yes this language was borrowed form 15.4-2011 but it's not correct. • Proposed change from commenter • Change to "CSMA is not required for beacon transmissions in the BOP".

  18. Proposed resolution of CID 66 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept • Change as the commenter proposed.

  19. Proposed resolution of CID 69 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.3 page 9 line 26 • Comment • Need to account for the cases where aTurnaroundTime is larger than the IFS time. • Proposed change from commenter • Insert instructions to the editor to modify the first paragraph of 5.1.1.3 as follows: "The MAC sublayer needs a finite amount of time to process data received by the PHY. To allow for this, two successive frames transmitted from a device shall be separated by at least an IFS period; if the first transmission requires an acknowledgment, the separation between the acknowledgment frame and the second transmission shall be at least the IFS period or aTurnaroundTime, whichever is greater. The length of the IFS period is dependent on the size of the frame that has just been transmitted. Frames (i.e., MPDUs) of up to aMaxSIFSFrameSize shall be followed by a short interfame space (SIFS) period of a duration of at least macSIFSPeriod. Frames (i.e., MPDUs) with lengths greater than aMaxSIFSFrameSize shall be followed by a long interframe spacing (LIFS) period of a duration of at least macLIFSPeriod. These concepts are illustrated in Figure 10." Insert instructions to the editor to modify Figure 10 to show that for the Acknolwedged transmission, the LIFS becomes max(LIFS, aTurnaroundTime)

  20. Proposed resolution of CID 69 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept

  21. Proposed resolution of CID 73 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1.8 page 9 line 47 • Comment • TMCTP-parent PAN coordinator can have multiple TMCTP-child PAN coordinators. Need to change the sentence. • Proposed change from commenter • Change "between the TMCTP-parent PAN coordinator (including the SPC) and the TMCTP-child PAN coordinator" to "between a TMCTP-parent PAN coordinator (including the SPC) and one of its TMCTP-child PAN coordinator(s)".

  22. Proposed resolution of CID 73 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept

  23. Proposed resolution of CID 76 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1.8 page 10 line 9 • Comment • Need to refine the phrase. • Proposed change from commenter • Change "The BOP consists of DBSs." to "The BOP consists of multiple DBSs."

  24. Proposed resolution of CID 76 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept

  25. Proposed resolution of CID 80 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1.8 page 10 line 16 • Comment • Need to refine the phrase. • Proposed change from commenter • Add "various values of" before "the macBeaconOrder".

  26. Proposed resolution of CID 80 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept

  27. Proposed resolution of CID 83 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1.8 page 10 line 21 • Comment • Need to correct the figure. • Proposed change from commenter • Figure 11ha should be modified for the beacon signal to occupy full duration of the first slot.

  28. Proposed resolution of CID 83 (2) • Proposed resolution • Reject • The beacon signal may or may not occupy full duration of the first slot.

  29. Proposed resolution of CID 85 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.1.1.8 page 10 line 31 • Comment • Need to define "BO", "SO", and "EO" in Figure 11ha.. • Proposed change from commenter • Add descriptions to define "BO", "SO", and "EO" in Figure 11ha.

  30. Proposed resolution of CID 85 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept in Principle • Add a sentence at the end of Line 17 of Page 10, “In this figure, BO, SO, and EO arethe values of the macBeaconOrder, the macSuperframeOrder, and the macTmctpExtendedOrder respectively.“.

  31. Proposed resolution of CID 121 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.14.1 page 14 line 44 • Comment • According to Fig. 34ta, the SPC sends its own beacon frame in Step C, not in Step D. • Proposed change from commentor • Clarification is needed or modification of the figure is needed.

  32. Proposed resolution of CID 121 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept • Refer doc. 15-13-0548.

  33. Proposed resolution of CID 122 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.14.1 page 14 line 44 • Comment • "The SPC switches into the channel allocated to the PAN coordinator and receives the beacon frame..." Is this done in order to assess the correct DBS allocation? What happens if no beacon is received by SPC? • Proposed change from commenter • n/a

  34. Proposed resolution of CID 122 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept in principle • Refer doc. 15-13-0548.

  35. Proposed resolution of CID 123 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.14.1 page 14 line 51 • Comment • Need to correct an error. • Proposed change from commenter • Change "the CAP" to "the BOP" .

  36. Proposed resolution of CID 123 (2) • Proposed resolution • Reject • The DBS request/response commands send/receive during the CAP.

  37. Proposed resolution of CID 125 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.14.1 page 15 line 7 • Comment • Fig. 34ta lacks of details discussed in text. • Proposed change from commenter • n/a

  38. Proposed resolution of CID 125 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept • Refer doc. 15-13-0548.

  39. Proposed resolution of CID 132 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.14.1 page 17 line 23 • Comment • Need to refine the phrase. • Proposed change from commenter • Add "to communicate with the TMCTP-child PAN coordinator 5" at the end of the sentence..

  40. Proposed resolution of CID 132 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept

  41. Proposed resolution of CID 133 (1) • Related subclause • Subclause 5.1.14.1 page 17 line 44 • Comment • There is not the deallocation procedure about the DBS and the dedicated channel in 5.1.14.1. • Proposed change from commentor • Add the deallocation procedure about the DBS and the dedicated channel in 5.1.14.1.

  42. Proposed resolution of CID 133 (2) • Proposed resolution • Accept • Refer doc. 15-13-0549.

More Related