Presentation on theme: "Doc.: IEEE 802.11-14/0424r0 Submission March 2014 Osama Aboul-Magd, Huawei TechnologiesSlide 1 HEW SG PAR and CSD Comments and Resolutions Date: 2014-03-18."— Presentation transcript:
doc.: IEEE /0424r0 Submission March 2014 Osama Aboul-Magd, Huawei TechnologiesSlide 1 HEW SG PAR and CSD Comments and Resolutions Date: Authors:
doc.: IEEE /0424r0 Submission March 2014 Osama Aboul-Magd, Huawei TechnologiesSlide 2 Abstract This submission include comments related to HEW SG proposed PAR and CSD, and SG response to these comments
doc.: IEEE /0424r0 Submission March 2014 Osama Aboul-Magd, Huawei TechnologiesSlide 3 Comments from Bob Grow IEEE P802.11tbd HEW (High Efficiency WLAN) Non substantive comments on the PAR. Draft PAR: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/14/ hew hew-sg-proposed-par.docx 1. Did notice that the Abstract per the document is for CSD, but not important for EC consideration. 2. As the provided draft does not appear to be from myProject, I assume it hasn't been presubmitted, if it had been submitted, then the supplied material should be myProject output. (The dates are an indicator -- PAR date empty, and approval and expiration dates filled in. But, the approval date can only be achieved if it was presubmitted.) The PDF file is attached will likely raise comment from NesCom (planning on an extension on initial submittal), but I prefer honesty rather than avoiding NesCom comment. The projected completion date is changed to March 2018
doc.: IEEE /0424r0 Submission Comments from Bob Grow appears to be the number of WG members, not the number of people on the project. Based on HEW SG attendance 200 is the expected number of people participating in ax. The total number of voting members is b second paragraph, missing space (This amendment). We accept the comment and we’ve already made the necessary edits typo in 5th line of first paragraph "( ". We accept the comment and we’ve already made the necessary edits. Draft CSD:
doc.: IEEE /0424r0 Submission Comments from Mark Hamilton (1/2) I am wondering about the band restrictions. To quote from the draft PAR: “This amendment defines operations in frequency bands between 1 GHz and 6 GHz.” It was confirmed at the plenary that the intent is to not cover the TV white space bands. These leads me to two questions: –The PAR talks about making changes to both/either MAC and PHY. If the MAC is changed, how are those changed envisioned to be band-specific? This seems to me to be some combination of cumbersome in the text (a lot of added “If such-and-such MIB attribute is true” language around all of the changes), and complex and unnecessary restriction in implementations to only use the new features if the specified bands are in use. MAC specifications may be general or specific for a certain PHY, e.g. MAC extensions for MU MIMO are specific for 11ac. The group will strive to make additional MAC features general. –If there are changes to the PHY, for example the 11ac PHY (which is specifically called out as focus for the improvements, per the PAR), will those changes not be reflected in the 11af PHY (which is currently an intentional “copy” of the 11ac PHY)? This again seems unnecessary and an unfortunate complication for implementations. A new PHY clause wouldn’t be reflected in 11af. Future evolution to 11af can extend ax features to white spaces. As a recent example, IEEE ac extended the 11n features to 5 GHz only. March 2014 Osama Aboul-Magd, Huawei TechnologiesSlide 5
doc.: IEEE /0424r0 Submission Comments from Mark Hamilton (2/2) I also wonder about the language discussing mobility. –The PAR has this bullet: “Outdoor operation is limited to stationary and pedestrian speeds.” (In the section 5.2.b extended comments at the bottom – which is an excellent addition, by the way – this made the PAR one of the most clear about its intent in recent memory!) There seems to be no matching discussion of indoor operation while mobile. –Between the above sentence, and the specific mention of mobile devices as a target stakeholder, I am assuming that some aspect of mobility is being considered as part of the problem set of the scope. Although, I don’t see any other discussion that clarifies this. (As many of you know, I am very interested in mobility performance, and would like to understand if there is overlap or other relationship to the proposed work.) If mobility factors are to be considered, I believe more language describing that is needed in the PAR. If mobility is not going to be considered, I don’t understand the discussion of (outdoor) mobility speeds, and suggest that bullet be changed to say that mobility is not being considered. The PAR doesn’t address mobility (BSS transition, vehicular speed) March 2014 Osama Aboul-Magd, Huawei TechnologiesSlide 6
doc.: IEEE /0424r0 Submission March 2014 Osama Aboul-Magd, Huawei TechnologiesSlide 7 IEEE WG Comments There are many acronyms that are not defined. E. g. CAGR in the CSD Document We accept the comment and we’ve made the necessary editorial changes. Typo: “Thisamendment” in the Scope of the Project Section 5.2.b We accept the comment and we’ve made the necessary editorial changes.
doc.: IEEE /0424r0 Submission March 2014 Osama Aboul-Magd, Huawei TechnologiesSlide 8 References The frequency range of operation for this standard should be refined. 1 GHz to 6 GHz seems to be quite broad. Suggestion – The focus of this amendment is on WLAN indoor and outdoor operation in the 2.4 GHz and the 5 GHz frequency bands. Additional bands between 1 GHz and 6 GHz may be added as they become available. Current spec consider bands from sub 1GHz up to 60 GHz. This amendment will focus on a subset of the current range of frequencies. Moreover the suggested changes are captured in the explanatory notes. Section 5.5 – Please define what 5 th percentile is. Editorial changes were made to clarify the sentence.