doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 1 Response to Various Clause 17 Comments LB 125 Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 2 Abstract This document addresses several individual comments from LB 125 concerning clause 17. These include 373, 374, 385, 394, 395

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 3 CIDs 373 and Ecclesi ne, Peter TAs long as you are changing the first sentence, the specification of temperature range reference is not Clause 13, rather it is Annex D. Change 'Clause 13' to 'Annex D' 374Kenne y, John TIs the reference to Clause 13 correct? If reference is incorrect, substitute correct clause number.

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 4 Clause 13 and 17 from IEEE STD Clause 13-The MIB comprises the managed objects, attributes, actions, and notifications required to manage a STA. The definition of these managed objects, attributes, actions, and notifications, as well as their structure, is presented in Annex D Three temperature ranges for full operation compliance to the OFDM PHY are specified in Clause 13… Clause 13 just points everything to Annex D.

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 5 What the Current Draft 4.0 Says Four temperature ranges for full operation compliance to the OFDM PHY are specified in Clause 13….. Then draft 4.0 goes on to define the temperature ranges

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 6 Proposed Solution These comments point out an inconsistency from a phrase cut and pasted from the base document. It refers to clause 13, and clause 13 points to Annex D. Draft 4.0 did not alter any of the wording in question. Two solutions: –Refer to maintenance –Just accept Peter’s recommendation and say Annex D in our draft Second solution will definitely eliminate both comments.

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 7 Resolution Motion to accept comments, instruct author to modify text to read: Four temperature ranges for full operation compliance to the OFDM PHY are specified in Annex D…. Motion Second For Against Abstain

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 8 CID Dickey, Susan T5 MHz channel spacing may be useful in some regulatory domains for WAVE operation. Should special transmitted center frequency tolerance or symbol clock frequency tolerance by applied to 5 MHz channels in WAVE mode?

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 9 Discussion and Proposed Resolution 10 PPM (the most stringent value in the standard) is currently specified for 5 MHz channel Tightening the tolerance from 20 PPM to 10 PPM for 10 MHz channels, and the practicality of implementing this is being challenged by multiple commenters; simulations are being investigated by George Vlantis in response to those comments. There is currently no evidence that the value needs to be changed for 5 MHz channels (reduced to less than 10 ppm). This may be difficult to do with current technology. Without any rationale or suggested value (and some evidence that crystals to support their suggested value are currently available), the suggested resolution is to leave the tolerance as stated in the current standard. Recommend rejecting comment. Moved Second For Against Abstain

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 10 Comment 385 concerning the use of the term “WAVE mode” in Clause Hart, Brian THere and thru-out clause 17, tie the physical parameters to the physical channels (e.g. regulatory class) not MAC-layer behavior (i.e. WAVE mode). as in comment

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 11 Proposed Resolution Propose to accept the comment. The term “WAVE mode” may be removed from the document for other reasons. Suggested Remedy is to tie physical parameters to physical channels (regulatory classes, not MAC-layer behavior). This comment can be satisfied by replacing the term “WAVE mode” in clause 17 with the phrase “when operating in regulatory classes 12 through 16 as defined in Table J.1” Move to instruct the editor to make the change suggested above in sections , , , and in p D4.0. Move Second For Against Abstain

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 12 CID 394 Inouw, Yasuhik o TRTR Table 17-13a "WAVE enhanced receiver performance requirements" specifies requirements only for adjacent channel rejection and non- adjacent channel rejection for each combination of modulation and coding scheme. There should be requirements for the minimum receiver sensitivity for each MCS depending on the channel bandwidth. Add minimum receiver sensitivity requirements.

doc.: IEEE /0983r0 Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis/USDOTSlide 13 Possible Resolution Commenter’s proposed resolution is to add minimum receiver sensitivity requirements. Appending the receiver sensitivity levels to this table caused significant confusion in previous letter ballots, and significantly more comments even though we are not proposing to change any of those values. Suggested resolution is to agree in principle with the commenter, official response is counter, and add the sentence: The corresponding minimum receiver sensitivities for each modulation and coding rate are the same as in table 17.13” to the end of the paragraph in and in p D 4.0. Move Second For Against Counter