doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> September 2010 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [FEC Comment Resolution] Date Submitted: [September 2010] Source: [Hartman van Wyk] Company [Itron] Address [Malakoff, France] Voice:[], FAX:], E-Mail:[hvanwyk@itron.com] Abstract: [This presentation addresses the remaining FEC comments proposed by Maxim .] Purpose: [For information] 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. Hartman van Wyk, Itron, Inc. <author>, <company>

Comments Included in Presentation July 2010 Comments Included in Presentation 1238, 1259. Hartman van Wyk, Itron, Inc.

doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> July 2010 FEC Comments Comment ID 1238 Comment Content: “Encoding the PHR and PSDU as a single block of data makes it difficult to extract the information contained in the PHR that is required to receive the PSDU, e.g. the length field.  Any attempt to extract the PHR data will require that the Viterbi traceback be done on a sequence that is not terminated with tail bits, and this leads to sub-optimum performance. Especially for blocks as short as the PHR. This means that the PHR could be less reliable than the PSDU which is highly undesireable.” Resolution proposed : Reject the comment. Already addressed per previous FEC comment resolutions proposal in document 564 rev6 with poprovided solution in doc 266 rev 4 Hartman van Wyk, Itron, Inc. <author>, <company>

doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> July 2010 FEC Comments Comment ID 1259 Comment Content: “Interleaver interleaves two-bits-at-a-time.  This is sub-optimum because it does not decorrelate the bits in time.” Resolution proposed : Reject the comment. Already addressed per previous FEC comment resolutions proposal in document 564 rev6 with poprovided solution in doc 266 rev 4 Hartman van Wyk, Itron, Inc. <author>, <company>