| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear preamblers:
Here is a summary of Aug. 25 CC
Attendees: Due to a larger number of participants, I only captured the company names here.
Adavcom, Alvarion; Beceem; ETRI; Hanaro Telecom; Hexagon; Intel; KT; Motorola; Nextel; Nortel; Runcom; SOLiD Technologies; Samsung; Sprint; ZTE
We discussed the following items:
1. Sequence poll results
We conducted straw polls through Email on sequence design
Poll 1: Do you support PN type sequence?
Poll 2: Do you support Poly phase type sequence? (yes or no or abstain)
Poll 3: Which sequence design do you support?1-5
Total 52 votes were received through Email, the summary of the votes are:
| yes | no | abstain | total voters | Yes percentage | |||
| Poll 1 results | 37 | 14 | 1 | 52 | 71.15% | ||
| Poll 2 results | 15 | 36 | 1 | 52 | 28.85% | ||
| 1 (Alvarion) | 2 (Motorola) | 3 (Runcom) | 4 (Samsung) | 5 (ZTE) | abstain | Total voters | |
| Poll 3 resutls | 0 | 8 | 23 | 13 | 5 | 3 | 52 |
| Percentage | 0.00% | 15.38% | 44.23% | 25.00% | 9.62% | 5.77% |
| Company | # of votes |
| Adavcom | 1 |
| Airspan | 1 |
| Alvarion | 3 |
| Beceem | 10 |
| ETRI | 1 |
| Hexagon | 1 |
| Intel | 10 |
| KT | 1 |
| Motorola | 4 |
| NextTel | 1 |
| Nortel | 4 |
| Runcom | 6 |
| Samsung | 1 |
| ST | 1 |
| WaveIP | 1 |
| ZTE | 5 |
Note: votes are counted on individual base. Please see details in http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/PreambleVotingResults.xls. One late vote from Samuel DH Kang (Intel) (yes for poll 1, yes for poll 1, 3 for poll 3) was not counted.
2. Update of sequence harmonization
There was a further discussion on GCL complexity. There were different view on how to evaluate the complexity. Jason from ZTE presented more detailed information on CAZAC sequence and simulation results. Jiho from Samsung presented the simulation results using the existing preamble design.
There was still no consensus on harmonization.
3. Mid amble
Ad-hoc reached the consensus to support the midamble concept. Sirram presented the joint proposal from Beceem, Samsung and Nortel. Members from Runcom, Motorola, TI and ZTE suggested that further harmonization is required for the proposal.They are interested in joining the harmonization discussion. Please send your input to Sriram.
4. Ad-hoc conclusions
We discussed how do we conclude the preamble ad-hoc outcome. Here are the agreed points:
1) There is a consensus to include a Common Sync Symbols with time domain repetition structure and not change the existing preamble. However, there are two different views on location and interval of the Sync symbol and the mandatory vs. option feature. Two contributions 261 and 327 captured these two views. We conducted a straw poll on these two views on Aug. 23 CC, the results are:
Members who are against the contribution 261: Jiho from Samsung
Members who are against the contribution 327:
Yossi from Samsung,
Sirram from Beceem,
Izhar from Adavcom,
Avi from Hexagon
Mark from Motorola
Joss from Intel
The poll indicates that contribution 261 has the majority support. Wen needs to do a revision to make it clear that Common Sync Symbol is a postamble.
2) There is no consensus reached for sequence design. We conducted a straw poll through Email to get people's preference, see results above.
3) There is a consensus to support the midamble concept. The detailed contribution needs to be further harmonized.
I would like to thank everyone for your hard work and very late night discussions. Hope that you had a good experience. Even though there is no more official Ad-hoc CC, several people express the willingness to have further discussions. I volunteered to set up a Email list for those interested to facilitate the discussion. I have not received any Email request to join the list. Unfortunately, I will not be able to access my Emails for two days. Maybe you can continue the discussion through the reflector list.
Regards,
Peiying