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

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

play fullscreen
1 / 84
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
86 Views
Download Presentation
reese
Download Presentation

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [SBCL10 Comment-Resolution Marco] Date Submitted: [14th of September 2010] Source: [Marco Hernandez] Company: [NICT] Address: [3-4 Hikarino-oka, Yokosuka, 239-0847, Japan] Voice:[+81 46-847-5439], FAX: [+81 46-847-5431], E-Mail:[] Re: [SBCL10 Comments-Resolutions 1st Letter Ballot] Abstract: [Assigned resolutions on SBCL10] Purpose: [Proposed resolutions for discussion in the UWB sub-group] 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. Marco, NICT

  2. D0 Comment S10-10 • Comment: Why should FEC be optional during association (beacon transmission)? Beacon should be robust and well protected using FEC. • Proposed change: FEC should be also employed as mandatory for beacon transmission. Marco, NICT

  3. Proposed Resolution(s) • Sentence removed. New PPDU section describes encoding. Marco, NICT

  4. D0 Comment S10-11, related S10-29 • Comment: FFD and RFD are not clearly defined. Does FFD means a coordinator, and does RFD means a node device? It is not mentioned what "IR-UWB PHY" include? • Proposed change: Make RFD and FFD clear in definition. Clearly state what "IR-UWB PHY" means, maybe mentioning what are addressed in Sec 10.11.3 and 10.11.4. Marco, NICT

  5. Proposed Resolution(s) • 1.1 Definitions of coordinators and node devices • In a BAN, the coordinator shall implement either an IR-UWB transceiver only or shall implement IR-UWB and FM-UWB transceivers in the same coordinator. • In a BAN, node devices shall implement either an IR-UWB transceiver only or a FM-UWB transceiver only. Marco, NICT

  6. D0 Comment S10-30 • Comment: (1) This subclause is out of PHY's scope. (2) Item 1 is addressed in the MAC portion. (3) Item 2 is purely imaginary. How can "the coordinator" "enforce non-medical devices to reduce their EIRP at transmitters"? • Proposed change: Remove this subclause. Marco, NICT

  7. Proposed Resolution(s) • Reject. • 1) It is part of the UWB-PHY scope. • 2) It is part of high QoS mode in UWB-PHY. • 3) Coordinator/nodes have an automatic gain control. • Commenter should restrain of non-technical opinions. Marco, NICT

  8. D0 Comment S10-155 • Comment: Scrambler section could be aligned to narrowband PHY. • Proposed change: Refer to the latest scrambler section in the narrowband PHY Marco, NICT

  9. Proposed Resolution(s) • This is editorial rather than technical. • “Scrambler word” is changed to “scrambler seed”. Marco, NICT

  10. D0 Comment S10-455 • Comment: In the case of un-coded transmission, CW N is set to zero. • Proposed change: FEC being mandatory, there is NO uncoded transmission case. Remove Marco, NICT

  11. Proposed Resolution(s) • Trasmission in the high QoS mode is coded and uncoded. • HARQ uses coded and uncoded transmission. Marco, NICT

  12. D0 Comment S10-159, 505 • Comment: Equation 75: "n" and "PI(n)" are not clearly defined. Generally functionality of bit interleaver is not clear: e.g., what is range of n? Maybe n = 0, 1, ... N_I-1. Is it basically a block interleaver? • Proposed change: Maybe "n" and "PI(n)" are indices to the scrambled, encoded, zero-padded (if necessary) bits before and after bit interleaver, maybe in each 64-bit block. Need to clearly specify the functionality of bit interleaver in this section. Marco, NICT

  13. Proposed Resolution(s) • Clarifications have been introduced, including n, PI(n) range. • The interleaver is applied in blocks of NIbits over the total number of bits NT. • If Nrem =rem(NT,NI)!=0, in the last interleaved block NIis set to Nrem . Marco, NICT

  14. 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. Marco, NICT

  15. Proposed Resolution(s) • Current value NI = 64 seems enough for CM3 and CM4. Marco, NICT

  16. D0 Comment S10-529 • Comment: PHR symbol structure description is lacking. • Proposed change: Add sentence "PHR shall be transmitted using the same modulation as SHR and signal parameters as in lowest raw data rates as in corresponding Table (54, 55 or 63) and without time hopping." Symbol structure formula can also be added. Marco, NICT

  17. Proposed Resolution(s) • Editorial rather than technical. • Section 10.6 describes the PHR construction bit-wise. Modulations of PPDU bits are described in section 10.11 (PHR and PSDU are modulated in the same fashion and so follow the same UWB symbol structure). • New text version clarifies this. Marco, NICT

  18. D0 Comment S10-337 • Comment: Erroneous heading. Table 52 shows the field name is HARQ, but not HARQ enable. It's also more relevant to denote the field as HARQ. • Proposed change: Delete "enable". Marco, NICT

  19. Proposed Resolution(s) • Editorial rather than technical. • Done. Marco, NICT

  20. D0 Comment S10- • Comment: (1) Both H0 and H1 need to be defined here. (2) 10.16.3 fails to define H1 (and H0) correctly. • Proposed change: The sender needs to set H0 and H1 in such a way that the recipient PHY can unambiguously distinguish a new PSDU containing the "information bits" for the first time from a retried PSDU containing the "information bits" transmitted before. Marco, NICT

  21. Proposed Resolution(s) • Reject • Subsection 10.6.1.3 only describes the PHR bits. The definition and proper use of H0 and H1 are in Section 10.16. Marco, NICT

  22. D0 Comment S10-267 • Comment: Improper language for the standards -- "can be achieved". The statement does not mean anything for interoperability. • Proposed change: Remove this sentence. Marco, NICT

  23. Proposed Resolution(s) • Editorial rather than technical. • Sentenced has been rephrased. Marco, NICT

  24. D0 Comment S10-280 • Comment: How is selected the Kasami sequence in a pool • Proposed change: Introduce a PMLE-SAP and SET primitive to configure such a parameter, plus introduce the MAC coexistence mechanisms accordingly (selection by the Hub ? After having listening to beacons of potential other BANs ?) Marco, NICT

  25. Proposed Resolution(s) • TG6 letter ballot does not specify management protocol between MAC and PHYs. • Selection of Kasami sequence for preamble at start up may be selected by the coordinator. Marco, NICT

  26. D0 Comment S10-37 • Comment: The draft says: "Tw = 8 ns. The chip time shall have duration of Tc = 128 ns corresponding to L= 16 for zero-padding. Notice Tw can consist of one pulse waveform or a burst of short pulses", but it does not say how the polarity of the individual short pulses is chosen. Is a scrambler used as it is in Data Mode? Marco, NICT

  27. D0 Comment S10-37 • Proposed change: Say how the polarity of the pulses is decided. Marco, NICT

  28. Proposed Resolution(s) • Text has been modified to improve clarity. • Burst pulse option (concatenation of pulses) shall use static scrambling (table 56). Marco, NICT

  29. D0 Comment S10-470 • Comment: The value of L is 16 for the OOK (non coherent) modulation and is not valid for the DPSK (differentially coherent) modulation because the overall duty cycle has to be kept constant to 3%. • Proposed change: The value of L is 16 for the OOK (non coherent) modulation and is 32 for the DPSK (differentially coherent) modulation. Marco, NICT

  30. Proposed Resolution(s) • L=16 for on-off signaling and L=32 for DBPSK have been introduced. Marco, NICT

  31. D0 Comment S10-473 • Comment: The equations should be provided (links are not OK) Marco, NICT

  32. D0 Comment S10-473 • Proposed change: Update links to equations or add equations. The case of DPSK, for which the mapping of the preamble sequence chip is done onto (-1,+1) in a differential way should be made clearer. The text could be changed by something like…. Marco, NICT

  33. Proposed Resolution(s) • Rephrasing is editorial. • Text regarding modulation/pulse shaping of SHR has been modify to improve clarity. • However, Table 59 illustrates the mapping between bits onto phases for DBPSK. It does not require +/- 1. Marco, NICT

  34. D0 Comment S10-535 • Comment: Scrambling option in the case of short-pulse burst is undefined for SHR. • Proposed change: "Add sentence:""In the case of short-pulse burst transmitted, only static scrambling is used for SHR preamble with sequences corresponding with N_cpb=4 and N_cpb=8 for OOK modulation and DBPSK modulation respectively, as defined in Table 56.""" Marco, NICT

  35. Proposed Resolution(s) • Text regarding modulation/pulse shaping of SHR has been modify to improve clarity. “In case of burst pulse option, the static scrambling sequence corresponding to Ncpb =4 shall be employed. “ Marco, NICT

  36. D0 Comment S10-165 • Comment: Table 54: Timing and data rate related parameters should be able to be derived by a simple hardware from basic clock. • Proposed change: Timing and data rate related parameters should be revised using integer multiples of basic clock (chip time of short pulse), 1/499.2MHz = 2.003205 ns. For example, T_sym = 2015.28 for the mandatory data rate (but currently 2048 ns). Marco, NICT

  37. Proposed Resolution(s) • Due to lack of space, 1/499.2 MHz has been rounded to 2 nsec. Formulas to derive the exact timing parameters has been introduced in the text. Marco, NICT

  38. D0 Comment S10-488 • Comment: Tables 54 and 55: values which are given in ns are integer multiples of the chip duration "Tp" which is not exactly 2ns (but 1/499.2 MHz). Therefore they are rounded values • Proposed change: For the sake of readibility we can let the rounded values in the tables, with a footnote, but we have to give the exact definitions through equations (which is done in 10.10.4, but here Tp needs to be defined already) Marco, NICT

  39. Proposed Resolution(s) • The definition of a pulse waveform as either a single pulse or concatenation of pulses have been introduced to improve clarity. • Tp is the pulse (of any kind) duration . • T=1/499.2 nsec. • Values in tables 54, 55 are rounded to 2 nsec for lack of space. Formulas to derive the exact timing parameters has been introduced in the text. Marco, NICT

  40. D0 Comment S10-179 • Comment: Not clear how this sequence s_n is used in the math expression for modulation output, e.g., Eq (86). The fact that the sequence is repeated in each symbol is not shown. • Proposed change: Make it clear how this sequence s_n is used in the math expression for modulation output, e.g., Eq (86). Marco, NICT

  41. Proposed Resolution(s) • Equations for on-off signaling and DBPSK have been modified to improve clarity. Marco, NICT

  42. D0 Comment S10-560 • Comment: Symbol mapper 6 information bits to 12 bits symbol must be simplified as it requires a search of 64 different codewords to recover 6 information bits. • Proposed change: Symbol mapper of 4 bits of information to 8 bits symbol requires a search of 16 codewords to recover 4 bits of information simplifying the receiver considerably Marco, NICT

  43. Proposed Resolution(s) • Symbol mapper of 4 bits rather than 6 bits simplifies complexity considerably. Marco, NICT

  44. D0 Comment S10-188,189,194 • Comment: Eq (85): d_n^m is not defined (note notation d_k is used on the Table 58). Notation h_m^k for time-hopping sequence is not aligned to what is used in Sec 10.11.2. And T_w is missing. • Proposed change: 1) Define d_n^m, 2) Use the same notation for time-hopping sequence... Marco, NICT

  45. Proposed Resolution(s) • Equation 85 has been modified accordingly. Marco, NICT

  46. D0 Comment S10-633 • Comment: NB is Spreading parameter and equals to 1 or 7 • Proposed change: Add proper explanations Marco, NICT

  47. Proposed Resolution(s) • Editorial rather than technical. • Explanations have been added. Marco, NICT

  48. D0 Comment S10-147 • Comment: What is a definition of central frequency? If this means carrier frequency of stationary UWB-IR type waveform, some of the proposed UWB PHYs do not use stationary carrier wave and accuracy discussion of carrier frequency is meaningless. Frequency alignment … Marco, NICT

  49. D0 Comment S10-147 • Proposed change: Statement of line 16 should only applies for differentially coherent PHYs that use stationary carrier. Marco, NICT

  50. Proposed Resolution(s) • Sentence removed to avoid confusion. Marco, NICT