1. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [Comment resolutions for LB67]
Date Submitted: [March 17, 2011]
Source: [Daniel Popa, Hartman Van Wyk]
Company [Itron, Inc]
Address [France]
[{daniel.popa,
Re: []
Abstract: []
Purpose: [This document provides resolutions to comments of LB #59]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 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 P
<author>, <company>

2. CID 191 Comment: Commenter request resolution Response: Resolution:
Define terms before using.
Commenter request resolution
Ti and M0-M2 should be defined. It doesn't seem like Ti is needed (it isn't used in Figure 117).
Response:
Accept in principle.
Resolution:
Instruction to editors:
Insert at line 43 page 60, after “…. represented as b_i”, the following sentence: “…and be fed into memory state M_0, M_1 and M_2 subsequently. The tail bits T_i and pad bits shall be inserted when the encoding of PHR and PSDU is completed.”
Insert “T_i” indication for tails bits in Figure 117.
Take all the text between line 33 on page 61 and line 46 on page 62 (with all figures & tables related to this text) and insert it – as it is - on page 60, at line 25, just before Figure 116.“

3. CID 208 Comment: Commenter request resolution Response: Resolution:
So it appears that the term S(ii) represents both the input sequence and the output sequence. The index may be different in the two cases (j vs. k), but I still find them too similar.
Commenter request resolution
Change at least one of the names, such that the two sequences no longer use the same term.
Response:
Accept in principle.
Resolution:
Instructions to editors:
In Equation (21j), replace S(ii) with Q(p)
On page 64, line 16 & 17 replace S(ii) with Q(p)

4. CID 209 Comment: Commenter request resolution Response: Resolution:
Make sure to clearly differentiate between a sequence and a subsequence.
Commenter request resolution
See comment.
Response:
Accept in principle.
Resolution:
See next slide.

5. CID 209 (cont’d) Resolution: In Equation (21g), replace “ii” with “p”.
Instruction to editors:
Remove equation (21f).
In Figure 121 replace “SP” with “Q”.
Replace the paragraph on page 63, lines 27 to 33 : “The sequence S = {s(0), s(1), …, s(N-1)} ….. shall be structured according to Equation (21f) and Equation (21g).” with the following text:
“The complete sequence of code symbols s(i), S = {s(0), s(1), …, s(N-1)} , is passed to the interleaver as NBLOCK consecutive subsequences S(p) , S = {S(0), S(1), …, S(NBLOCK – 1)} , where each subsequence has a size equal to NINTERLEAV/2 code-symbols. Each subsequence S(p) shall be derived according to Equation <Insert reference to equation describing how the subsequence is derived: in current version of the draft, i.e., D3/4g, this is Equation (21g)>.”
In Equation (21g), replace “ii” with “p”.
On page 64, lines 1 to 6, replace “ii” with “p”.
In Equation (21j), replace “ii” with “p”.
Page 64, lines 16 & 17 replace “ii” with “p”.
In Equation (21k), replace “ii” with “p”.

6. CID 389 Comment: Commenter request resolution Response: Resolution:
The equation is only given for FEC not being enabled.
Commenter request resolution
Add equations for FEC with all the sub-options (interleaver off/on).
Response:
Reject.
Resolution:
The FEC is optional. No change is required.