1. Response to Official Comments
April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0
July 2008
Response to Official Comments
Date:
Authors:
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

2. April 2007
doc.: IEEE /0570r0
July 2008
Abstract
WG response to official comments on VHTL6 and VHT60 PARs and 5C’s
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

3. Comments from Mark Klerer / 802.20 WG
July 2008
Comments from Mark Klerer / WG
Set #1
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

4. July 2008
Comment
The WG has reviewed the VHT PAR for operation below 6 GHz and has only one comment as a suggested improvement regarding that PAR.
The Scope (5.2) states that backward compatibility and coexistence with n is an objective of this project. Therefore it would seem that the project is dependent on the completion of n and should be so stated in section 5.3.
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

5. July 2008
Response
In order to take into account this comment section 5.3 of the proposed PAR (11-08/0807) has been edited and now mentions in 11-08/0807r2 that the completion of the VHTL6 standard is dependent upon the completion of IEEE802.11n.
The rationale for this change is that in order to provide a higher throughput than IEEE802.11n it is foreseen that the MIMO amendments of IEEE802.11n to IEEE are required features for the completion of the VHTL6 standard.
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

6. Comments from Paul Nikolich
July 2008
Comments from Paul Nikolich
Set #2
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

7. July 2008
Comment
It appears there is significant commonality between the proposed GHz PAR and the current c 60GHz project when assessing them from the antenna interface up through an interface approaching the MAC/PHY boundary regarding the range, operating frequency, occupied bandwidth, and target peak data rate. I recommend the participants in the two activities spend the time between now and the November 2008 plenary to seriously evaluate whether or not it is possible to craft a specification for a common 60GHz physical layer that can be utilized for both the c project and the proposed GHz. I realize there is no obvious mechanism within the 802 P&P to establish a dual-working group common physical layer specification project--but that should not deter the participants from considering creative ways to accomplish the suggested goal.
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

8. July 2008
Response
We propose modification to the PAR (in 08/806r2) and a Task Group plan of action as follows:
The Additional Explanatory Notes have been modified as follows:
It is in the best interest of users and the industry to strive for a level of coexistence between wireless systems. VHT will investigate coexistence with other systems in the 60 GHz band.
One approach will be to investigate a common PHY between VHT and c, and adopt if feasible.
Another approach is a common coexistence mechanism that may be used by other 60 GHz systems
Plan
The task group will review technical submissions (e.g. channel models, PHY characteristics) and c draft
The task group will set up joint sessions and conference calls to investigate commonality and reuse between systems
The task group will establish a plan for executing on common elements
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

9. Comments from James Gilb
July 2008
Comments from James Gilb
Set #3
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

10. Comment 1/5 I suggest the following changes to the 802.11 VHT PAR:
July 2008
Comment 1/5
I suggest the following changes to the VHT PAR:
1) In PAR scope, change "Address coexistence with other systems in the band" to be “Address coexistence with c and other systems in the band”
Response: The scope of the PAR addresses coexistence with other systems in the band. Modifications were made to the Additional Explanatory Notes referring to c. Refer to response to Set #2.
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

11. July 2008
Comment 2/5
2) Change PAR item 7.1 from "no" to "yes" and list c because it has similar scope.
Response: VHT60 is proposing an amendment to providing increased throughput to wireless LAN. This is a different scope than c.
Refer to differences outlined during the joint / meeting in r0 and r1
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

12. July 2008
Comment 3/5
3) Add to PAR scope "The standard specifies a channel plan that is compatible with c.“
Response:
The PAR scope includes “Addresses coexistence with other systems in the band”. Addressing coexistence implies that the band plan adopted may be compatible with c. Modifications were made to the Additional Explanatory Notes referring to c. Refer to response to Set #2.
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

13. July 2008
Comment 4/5
4) Add to the PAR scope bullet list "Enable coexistence by detecting c waveforms and providing methods to avoid interference.“ Alternatively, some equivalent requirement that requires the ability to detect and avoid while allowing the Task Group to develop new and innovative ways to solve this problem in the standard that they will develop.
Response: Agree to modify the PAR as described in response to Set #2
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

14. July 2008
Comment 5/5
5) Replace "Maintain the user experience" with "Support all of the currently approved management features.“
Response: Additional Explanatory Notes have been changed in 08/806r2 to include the meaning of “Maintain the user experience”.
“Regarding user experience, this refers to 1) maintaining the network architecture of the system and 2) reuse and maintain backward compatibility to management plane”
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

15. Comments from 802.15 WG Set #4 July 2008
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

16. July 2008
Comment 1/2
Eldad, Bruce As you are aware, passed the following motion at its opening plenary on Monday: Given that the WG perceives no significant differences between the approved c PAR and the proposed 60 GHz VHT PAR ( ), the WG recommends that the 802 EC not forward it to NesCom based on the fact that it is not sufficiently unique. Please view this as a comment to modify the scope and purpose of the draft 60GHz VHT PAR to reduce the overlap with 3c or alternatively to be more inclusive of 3c and defining what elements would need to be added to 3c to meet VHT needs at 60GHz. The Working Group will look again at its closing plenary on Thursday evening at whatever modified draft has been approved by at its mid week plenary and circulated to the EC and recommend a position based on the modified PAR. I am encouraging TG3c to offer more concrete suggestions prior to the 1700 deadline today.  Let me know if you have any questions. Regards
Bob
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

17. July 2008
Response
With respect to the “ WG perceives no significant differences”
Two aspects of the PAR ensure distinct identity from c
Enable fast session transfer between PHYs
Maintain the user experience
As an amendment to , VHT maintains the user experience
maintaining the network architecture of the system
E.g. infrastructure basic service set, extended service set, access point, station
Reuse and maintain backward compatibility to management plane
E.g. association, authentication, security, measurement, capability exchange, MIB
Fast session transfer provides seamless rate fall back between VHT and n for multi-band devices
Provides expected WLAN coverage from combo /5 GHz devices
Refer to differences outlined during the joint / meeting in r0 and r1
With respect “encouraging TG3c to offer more concrete suggestions”
See responses to Set #5
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

18. July 2008
Comment 2/2
I think the position is consistent with Paul's comment if we can agree to spend some quality time between now and November with some special emphasis at the September Interim.
Response: refer to response for Set #2
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

19. Comments from 802.15.3c 15-08-0498-03-003c Set #5
July 2008
Comments from c c
Set #5
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

20. July 2008
Comment 1/7
In PAR scope, change "Address coexistence with other systems in the band" to be "Address coexistence with c and other systems in the band“
Response: Refer to (Set #3, comment 1)
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

21. July 2008
Comment 2/7
2) Change PAR item 7.1 from "no" to "yes" and list c because it has a similar scope.
Response: Refer to (Set #3, comment 2)
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

22. July 2008
Comment 3/7
3) Add to PAR scope "The standard specifies a channel plan that is compatible with c.“
Response: Refer to (Set #3, comment 3)
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

23. July 2008
Comment 4/7
4) Add to PAR scope "Compliant STAs and APs shall be able to identify the c common mode for the purpose of detecting and avoiding mutual interference.“
Response: Refer to Set #2
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

24. July 2008
Comment 5/7
5) Add to the PAR scope "The amendment shall support all of the currently approved management functions.”
Response: Refer to (Set #3, comment 4)
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

25. July 2008
Comment 6/7
6) Suggest VHT60 adopt the three PHYs developed in TG3c and work on a MAC amendment.
Response: Refer to Set #2
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation

26. July 2008
Comment 7/7
7) Modify the PAR to show significant differences in scope, in terms of data rate and range from c.
Response: Refer to (Set #4, comment 1)
Eldad Perahia, Intel Corporation