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

1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Proposed Resolution for Some UWB PHY Comments ] Date Submitted: [13 September, 2010] Source: [Jaehwan Kim, Cheolhyo Lee, HyungSoo Lee, Sangsung Choi] Company: [ETRI] Address: [ETRI, 138 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-700, South Korea] Voice:[+82-42-860-5338], FAX: [+82-42-860-5218], E-Mail:[kimj@etri.re.kr, clee7@etri.re.kr, hsulee@etri.re.kr, sschoi@etri.re.kr] Re: [Proposed Resolution of D0 Comment S10-417, 418, 515] Abstract: [This document proposes several resolutions for Letter Ballot 55, specifically for the UWB PHY section. ] Purpose: [For discussion by IEEE 802.15 TG6] 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. <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>

2. Proposed Resolution of D0 Comment S10-417, 418, 515 <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>

3. D0 Comment S10-417 • Comment • The length 64 for bit interleaving is not sufficient to overcome the burst error • Proposed Change • Enlarge the length of interleaving <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>

4. Proposed Resolution • Discussion • Performances <Interleaver length: 128> <Interleaver length: 64> <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>

5. Proposed Resolution • Performances • Increase the interleaver length to 192 <Interleaver length: 384> <Interleaver length: 192> <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>

6. D0 Comment S10-418 • Comment • The sentence, "This represents the concept of the proposal Group PPM (GPPM)", is declared in draft version 6(15-10-0245-06-0006), but this sentence was eliminated in IEEE802.15.6/D01 for letter ballot. • Proposed Change • This sentence should be included in the chapter 10.11.3 and the detail explanation are required to insert in the appendix. <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>

7. Proposed Resolution • Discussion • In the draft, the name of the non-coherent modulation scheme is not described. • Appropriate name of the modulation should be mentioned. • Neither OOK and PPM can not express the concept of the modulation in the draft. • Add the sentence • Page 178, Line 2~4 • This represents the concept of the Group PPM (GPPM) (see Anex xx) • The explanation of the GPPM is required to Annex. <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>

8. D0 Comment S10-515 • Comment • Current symbol map GPPM doesn’t appear to be based on some linear code. This will require complex distance decoding at the receiver • Proposed Change • Replace symbol map by a linear block code <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>

9. Proposed Resolution • Discussion • Linear block code • All the codewords should be closed in addition • To satisfy the criteria, all-zero codeword should be included in codeset • For GPPM, 6 ones should be contained in the 12 bit codeword • If we use linear block code for the symbol mapping, OOK is employed for the modulation so that it may cause the performance degradation of the system • Codeset which which shows the performance enhancement can be accepted, however, linear code cannot be used for the symbol mapper <J. Kim, C. Lee, H. Lee, S. Choi>, <ETRI>