Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Comment resolution regarding FEC] Date Submitted: [March 16 2010] Source: [Hiroshi Harada] Company [ NICT] Address  Voice  E-Mail: [firstname.lastname@example.org] Re: [ ] Abstract: [Comment resolution regarding FEC] 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.
CID# 141, 242, 25, 105, 191, 318, 329 Comments: CID# 141 “The FEC's need to be specified. More information is needed.” CID# 242 “Description shown for FEC Option is not applicable.” CID# 25 “FEC is TBD.” CID#105 “FEC still not defined” CID#191 “Missing sub-clause text.” CID#318” FEC Algorithm is To Be defined” CID#329 “FEC details TBD.” -> Comments have been withdrawn • Resolution: • Based on the discussion in FEC subgroup, the information in the Doc # 139r0 will be given to the editors to merge into the draft standard document.
Background and Summary Background • 24 comments have been assigned to FEC subgroup , CID#25,42,53,55,56,83,84,90,98,105,141,142,148,157,162,176,191,242,258,302,312, 317,318,329 • 4 comments CID#53,55,56,176 were resolved by initial-review of comments by technical editors • CID#258 and 317 have been withdrawn by proposers • Doc#15-10-184-00 clarified some open comments to be resolved regarding FEC • Doc#15-10-184-00 requested FEC subgroup to resolve comment ID (CID) # 25, 56, 105, 141, 142, 176, 191, 312, 318, 329 • The rest 18 comments ID#25,42,83,84,90,98,105,141,142,148,157,162,191,242,302,312,318,329 must be resolved by subgroup Summary • CIDs 25, 56, 105, 141, 191, 318, and 329 have been resolved previously • CIDs 142, 302 and 312 have been resolved in this document • Except for CIDs 142, 302, and 312, we still need to resolve 8 comments 42, 83, 84, 90, 98,148,157, and 162, this documents have resolved these comments
Comments 142, 302, 312 Comments: • CID#142 “Dash list and table 1 is incomplete, missing the very narrow bands, the 700-something Chinese (DSSS) band. Not critical to get right now and not FSK specific. Some of the band descriptions are not fully correct (902 is not ISM everywhere). Fully listing all the bands will be cumbersome. Better to follow the precedent of prior PHY amendments..” • CID#302: “It makes no sense from a performance perspective to (separately) code PHR without coding the PSDU (and vice-versa to (separately) code PSDU without coding the PHR). If coding is used it should be over the entire PPDU at the same time (PHR + PSDU). .” • CID#312“It makes no sense to (separately) code PHR without coding the PSDU (and vice-versa to (separately) code PSDU without coding the PHR). If coding is used is should be over the entire PPDU at the same time (PHR + PSDU).” Resolutions: CID#142: See FEC document, Doc. 15-10-0139-00 Additional table may need to be added. CID#302,312: Accept in principle. If a coding is used, the coding should be over the entire PPDU at the same time (PHR+PSDU)
Comments 42, 83, 84, 90, 98,157, 162 Comments: • CID#42 : “It is completely unclear how the reserved bits can be either 1 or 2 bits and the FEC Option 1 or 2 bits..” • CID#83: “PayloadCoding parameter.” • CID#84: “PD-DATA.request PayloadCoding parameter def.” • CID#90: “PayloadCoding parameter.” • CID#98: “FEC field values.” • CID#157: “Table 8: Payload Coding should be an enumeration of the FEC modes if more than one, or “ON,OFF” if only one FEC is selected..” • CID#162: “Table 10, Payload coding parameter should be an enumeration. .” Resolutions: • FEC ON/OFF is indicated only by SFD no PHR. The selection of either systematic or not will be addressed by the PIB. So the PayloadCoding parameter will not be specified and instead the bits will be reserved bit.
Comments 148 Comments: • CID#148: “Table 1: This entry specifies a data rate with FEC used. This is inconsistent with all other entries in this table. Also, the text elsewhere implies FEC is optional but 50kbps in this band is mandatory, which is inconsistent. .” Resolutions: CID#148: Accept in principle. The text elsewhere implies FEC is optional