1. Comments on TGn FRCC Doc #11-03-814r17
Month 2004
doc.: IEEE /240r0
March 2004
Comments on TGn FRCC Doc # r17
Massimiliano Siti, Stefano Valle, George Vlantis
STMicroelectronics
{massimiliano.siti, stefano.valle,
M. Siti, S. Valle, G. Vlantis - STMicroelectronics
Colin Lanzl, Aware

2. March 2004
CC59
At the 24 Feb 2004 FRCC telecon, STMicro proposed a change to CC59 whereby impairments IM2, IM3, and IM4 are switched off (cf. Doc. #11-04/0210r0), in order to isolate the effects of the impairments.
The straw poll is reported in the Doc # r10 minutes in section 3.05, pg. 8 as 10-to-8 passing, although the suggested text is missing from the current CC version.
Including impairments in CC59 will obscure the comparison among proposals for ideal MIMO channels with AWGN at the receivers.
M. Siti, S. Valle, G. Vlantis - STMicroelectronics

3. March 2004
Diversification of CC67
Evaluation of the “maximum achievable” performance of the various proposals, in an ideal (i.e. non-AWGN, ideal CSI at Rx, and IM2-IM4 switched off) is not included in CC59 and the variants of CC67.
We proposed text for a new CC67-bis, in Doc. #11-04/0210r0, in which the “maximum achievable” performance can be determined.
Robustness to impairments can be evaluated, separately, as in the current CC67, for clarity.
M. Siti, S. Valle, G. Vlantis - STMicroelectronics

4. March 2004
Text for new CC67-bis
Name: PER performance in non-AWGN channels and ideal conditions .
Definition: show the PER curves for the same cases proposed in CC67 with the following conditions: perfect CSI at the Rx, perfect timing acquisition (timing locked to the first sample of the OFDM symbol), no frequency offset (frequency offset compensation unit switched off), no phase noise.
Result -- still 3 simulations:
CC67 = IM1 through IM4 (“implementation”)
CC67.2 = IM1 through IM3 (“robustness”)
CC67.3 = IM1 only (“algorithm”)
M. Siti, S. Valle, G. Vlantis - STMicroelectronics

5. March 2004
Comments on 11-03/814r17 (1 of 2)
For the purpose of comparison, one set of antenna characteristics (e.g. uniform linear array, isotropic elements, l/2 spacing, no antenna coupling, vertical polarization) should be specified in the CCs. Different configurations should be allowable under the standard.
CC67.2: Should specify the two extremes (-40ppm & +40ppm). This is preferable to a random frequency offset IM2.
M. Siti, S. Valle, G. Vlantis - STMicroelectronics

6. March 2004
Comments on 11-03/814r17 (2 of 2)
We understand that the usage of IM1, IM3 and IM4 in the “PHY Performance” CCs (59 and 67s) is universal, and that the usage of the “original version” of IM2 (with +/- 40 ppm) is restricted to CC A clarification on the role of CC67.2 (i.e. mandatory or optional) and on its relationship with IM3 is in order.
Usage of IM5 Noise Figure is even a bigger mystery.
M. Siti, S. Valle, G. Vlantis - STMicroelectronics