| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear Jason:
Thanks. Please upload as soon as possible. If you have problems to upload, you can send the file to me, I will update for you.
Regards,
Peiying
-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshen Hou [mailto:yoshenhou@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 7:41 AM
To: Zhu, Peiying [CAR:DP13:EXCH]; STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 23 Preamble Ad-Hoc group CC sum mary
Hi Peiying and all,
We will be uploading a revised C80216e-04_265r1.pdf
and a power-point slide s80216e-04_265r1.ppt
as soon as we resolve networking problems in China.
It gives a better reading and understanding of
CAZAC for preamble.
Thanks,
Jason Hou
--- Peiying Zhu <pyzhu@NORTELNETWORKS.COM> wrote:
> Dear preamblers:
>
> Here is a summary of the today's CC.
>
> Attendees: Due to a larger number of participants, I
> only captured the
> company names here.
>
> Adavcom, Alvarion; Beceem; Broadband Mobile
> Technologies; ETRI; Hanaro
> Telecom; Hexagon; Intel; KT; LGE; Motorola; Nortel;
> Qualcomm; Runcom; SOLiD
> Technologies; Samsung; Sprint; ZTE
>
> I may miss few people, some joined after the meeting
> started, I did not
> checked the name. Please let me know if I missed
> you.
>
> We discussed the following items:
>
> 1. Yossi's contribution on simulation results: <
>
<http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Pream
> ble_FrameDetection_1.doc>
>
http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Preamb
> le_FrameDetection_1.doc>
>
> Yossi presented some simulation results based on the
> current preamble
> design. Several people asked questions for
> clarifications in term of
> simulation condition etc.. Jiho indicated that he
> tried the same simulation
> as Yossi, however, he could not reproduce the same
> results for 2dB shadowing
> case, please see Jiho's Email. There might be some inconsistence
> between simulation assumptions. Jiho suggested to have more
> time to verify the
> simulation results.
>
> 2. Status updated of common sync symbol
>
> There are few contributions uploaded and comments in
> the database. Please
> see the document for preamble and midamble related contributions. <
>
<http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Sessi
>
on33%20contributions%20organization%20and%20overview%20document%20Rev.4.xls>
>
http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Sessio
>
n33%20contributions%20organization%20and%20overview%20document%20Rev.4.xls>.
> Please note that Contribution 241 from Motorola can
> be found in <
>
<http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_241.pdf>
>
http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_241.pdf>.
> The rest of the
> contributions can be found in <
> <http://tge.wirelessman.org/>
> http://tge.wirelessman.org/>.
>
> I submitted a comment (# 1007) for the eventual
> ad-hoc harmonized proposal.
>
> There are basically two joint contributions related
> to common sync symbol:
> contribution number 261 and 327. Seung Joo gave a
> short update on the
> contribution 327. Wen gave an update on the
> contribution 261. The basic
> concept of both contributions is the same, however,
> the actual location, the
> interval of the common sync symbols and mandatory
> vs. optional are
> different. Members involved in both contributions
> are requested to continue
> the harmonization efforts.
>
> Chair asked for a straw poll on both proposals to
> give indications of
> member's preference, also in the event that no
> unanimous agreement can be
> reached, Chair will present the results of straw
> poll in the cover page.
> Here is the result.
>
> Members who are against the contribution 261:
>
> Jiho from Samsung
>
> Members who are against the contribution 327:
>
> Yossi from Samsung
>
> Sirram from Beceem (concern on overhead)
>
> Izhar from Adavcom
>
> Avi from Hexagon
>
> Mark from Motorola (reservation on overhead)
>
> Joss from Intel
>
> Masoud from Nextel asked to give him some time to
> read the contributions
> before he gave the answer. For 261, he is ok if it
> is post amble.
>
> 2. Status update on sequence harmonization
>
> Jeff provided an update on his complexity comparison
> results. He prepared a
> contribution, and did not have enough time to upload
> before the meeting. It
> is now on the server: <
>
<http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Motor
> ola_GCL_fast%20cell_search.pdf>
>
http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Motoro
> la_GCL_fast%20cell_search.pdf>. Please take a look.
> Jeff thinks that ZTE's
> sequence design has a similar complexity as GCL
> sequence, Jason disagreed.
> He said that he will also upload a document on his
> finding.
>
> Yossi, Tal, Jason and Seung Joo each gave an update
> on their thinking of
> sequence harmonization. Basically, there are two
> types of sequence design
> proposed: PN type, similar to the existing sequence, polyphase type,
> such as (CGL and CAZAC) Seung Joo think that there might be
> some potential of
> harmonization with Tal. All the other members think
> that it is difficult to
> harmonize, basically we need to select one sequence
> design.
>
> Jose asked for a clarification on whether sequence
> designs are for the
> legacy preamble or Common Sync. The answer is for
> both. It is preferred to
> use the same kind of sequence if there is no
> specific technical reason. In
> case that no consensus can be made regarding the
> sequence, then common sync
> symbol will use the current PN type of sequence.
>
> We had a discussion on what kind of conclusion we
> want to give as ad-hoc
> group. Several options were proposed: 1) no
> consensus 2) no change, i.e.,
> use truncated 2k sequence 3) minimum change, with
> some improvement of 2k
> truncation, i.e., runcom's new hand crafted
> sequences 3) straw poll for each
> contributions. People agreed to do a straw poll so
> we get some indication on
> people's preference. Mark asked to delay the straw
> poll in order to give
> people some time to read new contribution on the
> evaluation of sequences. We
> agreed to do a straw poll through Email. Please read
> the document from Jeff
> and all the other sequence related contributions
> before you reply the poll.
> The poll deadline will be Aug. 25 noon US pacific
> time. To avoid flooding
> the reflector, please send Email to me, I will do a
> count and report the
> results.
>
> Poll 1: Do you support PN type sequence? (yes or no
> or abstain)
>
> Poll 2: Do you support Poly phase type sequence?
> (yes or no or abstain)
>
> Poll 3: Which sequence design do you support? (Chose
> 1-5 or abstain)
>
> 1) Contribution from Tal (Alvarion): <
>
<http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Pream
>
ble_Adhoc_Alvarion_PRBS%20based_preamble_design_r1.pdf>
>
http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Preamb
>
le_Adhoc_Alvarion_PRBS%20based_preamble_design_r1.pdf>
>
> 2) Contribution 241 from Jeff et al.(Motorola): <
>
<http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_241.pdf>
>
http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_241.pdf>
>
> 3) Contribution from Yossi et al.(Runcom): <
>
<http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_125.pdf>
>
http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_125.pdf>
>
> 4) Contribution from Jiho et al.(Samsung): <
>
<http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_164r1.pdf>
>
http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_164r1.pdf>
>
> 5) Contribution 245 from Jason et al.(ZTE): <
>
<http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/TGe%252edb/C80216
>
=== message truncated ===