1. Proposed text on section 15. 3. 5. 2. 1 subband partitioning of 802
Proposed text on section subband partitioning of m Amendment
Document Number:
IEEE C802.16m-09/0316r1
Date Submitted:
Source:
HanGyu Cho, Seunghyun Kang, Jinsoo Choi, Jin Sam Kwak {hgcho, sh_kang, emptylie,
LG Electronics
Venue:
IEEE C802.16m-08/053 “Call for Comments and Contributions on Project m Amendment
Working Document ”
Purpose:
To provide details on subband partitioning to be approved by TGm and adopted in the Amendment
Working Document
Notice:
This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release:
The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE
Patent Policy:
The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures:
< and <
Further information located at < and < >.

2. Motivation
In the current IEEE m Amendment Working Document (IEEE m-08/050), the subband partitioning rule in the section are TBD
In the document C80216m-08_1508r1, there are many subband partitioning rules proposed by many companies
This contribution reviews those subband partitioning rules and proposes one.

3. Subband partitioning
To assign KSB subbands as PRUSB and KMB subbands as PRUMB

4. The issue is
Is there any reason why we break the subband alignment when performing the subband partitioning?
Our answer is “No” because
Regarding CQI feedback, keeping the subband alignment is efficient
Keeping the subband alignment is simple and intuitional

5. The issue is
Is shortage of frequency diversity for distributed LRU critical when keeping the subband alignment?
Our answer is “No” because
Usually, KSB<=Nsub/2, then, shortage of frequency diversity does not occur
The shortage of frequency diversity of distributed LRU might occur only when the number of reserved subbands KSB is very large (i.e., the number of remaining subbands is very small)
This case is very scarce
Even if KSB is very large, some subbands out of the KSB reserved subbands can be used for DRU, so, the frequency diversity order of distributed LRU will increase
Any company hasn’t shown the results that performance is reduced when keeping the subband alignment
Based on the contribution IEEE C802.16m-09/0251proposed by Intel, we don’t see any performance shortage when keepting the subband alignment (Opositely, the case when keeping the subband alignment ourperforms the case when breaking the subband alighment)

6. Current status on subband partitioning
There are four subband partitioning rules keeping the subband alignment proposed by companies
Based on simulations, we found that Intel, LGE, and, ZTE’s rules show exactly the same subband partitioning even if their equations are different
Samsung’s rule does not seem different technically

7. Conclusions
Subband alignment should be kept when performing subband partitioning
Three rules proposed by LGE, Intel, and ZTE are exactly the same and also technically similar with Samsung’s one
We suggest to adopt the LGE’s equations proposed in C80216m-08_1508r1

8. Proposed Text on subband partitioning
Adopt the following equation for PRU to PRUSB mapping in page 24 of IEEE m-08/050
where
where GCD(x, y) is the greatest common divisor of x and y.
Adopt the following equation for PRU to PRUMB mapping in page 24 of IEEE m-08/050