Download Response To Comments

March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks
(WPANs)
Submission Title: [Response to optional CoU and CS pulses related comments]
Date Submitted: [March 7, 2006]
Source: [Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi
Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno]
Company [National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
(NICT)]
Contact: Huan-Bang Li.
Voice:[+81 46 847 5104, E-Mail: [email protected]]
Abstract: [Discussion on comments related to optional CoU and CS pulse and
response to the comments]
Purpose: [To help the discussion for answering no-vote comments to 15.4a draft]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. 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 P802.15.
Slide 1
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Response to Optional CoU and CS
Pulses Related Comments
Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi
Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)
Slide 2
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Contents
• General concerned issues
– Complexity
– Inter-operability
• Response to comments one-by-one
– 8 TR-comments
– 5 T-comments
– 8 E-comments.
Slide 3
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Two General Concerned Issues
• Complexity
– Do the optional pulse shapes increase complexity?
• Inter-operability
– How can devices with optional pulse shapes
communicate with other devices?
Slide 4
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Limited Complexity
– Optional pulse shapes can increase the number of
SOP and/or enhance SOP performance. Optional
pulses also help mandatory-only pulse in a way that
they reduce the interference level between each other.
– Optional pulse shapes are not required to be installed
for all 15.4a devices. No complexity increase for
devices operated with only mandatory pulse.
– Installation of optional pulse shape is limited to
devices that seek the advantages of optional pulses.
Slide 5
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Guaranteed Inter-Operability
– Operation on a optional pulse can only be validated in
a piconet where all devices are implemented with the
pulse shape and PAN coordinator approves the
operation.
– Besides the optional pulses, all devices are installed
with the mandatory pulse. They can talk with other
devices on the mandatory pulse anytime required.
– A PAN coordinator keeps ‘listening’ to the channel
even when the piconet is operated with an optional
pulse. It can switch the piconet to mandatory pulse
when required.
Slide 6
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Response To Comments
• Technical required comments
• Technical comments
• Editorial comments
Slide 7
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Technical Required Comments (1)
• No.441
– The y scales of the graph are not defined. What are these?
– Response: The axis is ‘amplitude’.
– Remedy: Add ‘amplitude’ to the y axis of the graph. (Fig. 27h)
• No.442
– The Greek letter mu is already in use in this standard for a
different quantity.
– Pick a different letter.
– Remedy: Replace ‘mu’ with ‘beta’
(Page 37, Line 4 - 5 and Table 39I)
• No.443
– “will remain the same” is not strong enough.
– Change to “shall be the same”.
– Remedy
Change as suggested. (page 36 and 37)
Slide 8
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Slide 9
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Technical Required Comments (2)
• No.444
– 'tau(f) is not in units of seconds/Hz, it is units of
seconds. If, on the other hand you are describe a
constant tau that is multiplied by frequency as
opposed to a function tau that has frequency as a
parameter, then the constant would indeed have units
of second/Hz
– 'Remove references to tau(f) and replace with tau * f
– Remedy: Change as suggested.
(Page 37, Equation o-2 and the line under it)
*f
Slide 10
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Technical Required Comments (3)
• No.610 and No.611
– The standard as produced is really complicated for a
sensor application. Furthermore, optional pulse shapes
and the like will thwart true standardization, as
equipment built with the different pulse shapes will not
be compatible. To simplify, I suggest eliminating all
optional pulse shapes. This applies both to the chaotic
pulses and the continuous time pulses.
– One can only install the mandatory pulse if this meets
the requirements.
– Optional pulse shapes only need to be installed when
one want to take the advantages provided by the
optional pulses.
– Inter-operability is guaranteed because FFD keep
listening with the mandatory pulse even when operated
in optional modes.
Slide 11
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Technical Required Comments (3)
• No.762
– Interroperation of chirp-capable nodes with non-chirp
capable nodes needs to be clarified. It appears that the two
modes are completely incompatible, creating what is
essentially yet another alternate PHY.
– Interoperation is guaranteed because FFD keep listening
with the mandatory pulse even when operated in optional
modes. When both chirp-capable nodes and non-chirp
capable nodes exist in a piconet, the piconet can only
operate with the mandatory pulse.
• No.865
– These pulses need to support reception by the noncoherent receiver (need to have same pulse or symbol
duration and bandwidth, etc).
– An option will only be validated in a piconet that all devices
are installed with this option and the coordinator approves
the use of this option. Default demodulation is coherent.
Slide 12
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Technical Comments (1)
• No.725
– It is unfortunate that we have an additional channel frequency
table. Can this somehow be integrated into the existing
frequency channel plan?
– Response: These are additional channels provided by the
CoU option in addition to FDM.
– Remedy: To distinguish from the representation of FDM
channels, replace Ch.# by CCH.#. (Chirping CH).
(Table 39I)
Slide 13
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Technical Comments (2)
• No.727
– Are of the parameters of table 39m represented in the
MLME/PLME/MAC commands?
– To be added.
(Section 6.2? Table 23?)
• No.728
– Problem in notation between Equation 2 and Figure 27j.
– This may only be editorial ... is there an argument change
between equation 2 and Figure 27j?
– Response: The argument is ‘tau’.
– Remedy: Rewrite the sentence as “… and some examples
generated using Equation (o-2) are shown in Figure 27j”.
Slide 14
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Table 23
Slide 15
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Slide 16
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Technical Comments (3)
•
No.866
–
Need details on how the transmitter and receiver will
negotiate the use of the chirp pulses
–
Response: This is controlled by PAN coordinator.
•
No.867
–
For CS pulses, does the TX filtering affect the receiver
performance? How does the receiver know which pulse
shape to expect?
–
Response: To add description at PLME.
Slide 17
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Editorial Comments (1)
• No.143
– Add "CoU", and all other new acronyms and
abbreviations, to clause 4.
– Remedy: Add as suggested.
• No.255
– Be sure to add "SOP" to clause 4, Acronyms and
Abbreviations.
– Remedy: Add as suggested.
• No.272
– third paragraph; Which Equation (1)?
– Remedy: Change to Equation (o-1).
(Page 36, above the graph)
Slide 18
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Editorial Comments (2)
• No.273
– SI unit for nanoseconds is ns
– Remedy: Replace ‘nsec’ with ‘ns’.
(Figure 27j)
• No.274
– second paragraph; What is this jumble of words trying to
state?
– Remedy: Rewrite the paragraph to “Group delay values
used for this option is listed in Table 39m. Each 500MHz
band can use No.1 and No.2 pulses, while Each 1.5GHz
band can use No.3 through No.6 pulses.”
(Page 38)
• No.440
– Equation (1) is the wrong cross reference.
– Remedy: Replace ‘Equation (1)’ by ‘Equation (o-1)’
Slide 19
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Editorial Comments (3)
• No.588
– 1. Replace 'Equation (1)' by 'Equation (o-1)'. 2. Replace
'chirped DS pulse' by 'CoU pulse'.
– Remedy: Change as suggested.
• No.726
– I guess I don't understand the concept behind
continuous spectrum pulses. Perhaps a little bit of
explanation as to why these pulses are continuous. For
example, what is a non-continuous spectrum pulse?
– Response: This pulse shape is generated by passing a
mandatory pulse through a filter with controlled group
delay characteristics over the signal bandwidth. It is a
group delay controlled pulse.
Slide 20
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno
March 7, 2006
Doc: IEEE 802.15-06-0142-00-004a
Conclusion
• Comments on optional pulses are reviewed and
remedy to these comments are discussed.
• A lot of comments concern complexity and interoperability. These comments can be solved by the
motion adopted at Hawaii meeting.
• Next step
Slide 21
Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno