|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thank you for your notice and comment.
I will bring this issue again tonight. If MC Adhoc reaches consensus on another value than 3bit,
we may request to revisit this comment at the main session.
Dear Jaewon and all,
Thank you for your effort to improve the std for MC.
I’m sorry not to be there to help you.
About the today’s result on MC comment resolution(#342,343), I’ve submitted my reply comments on the server.
Unfortunately they didn’t included in commentary file, and my some concerns might not be shown.
About the number of bits for physical carrier index,
I think 3bit-long is too short to include all possible combinations.
3bit means 8 carrier types can be deployed.
Practically ABS may not have such many carriers I agree. But, the number of the physical carrier is not the number of the carriers in an ABS.
It means all possible carrier type in a network.
For example, if an network has three types of ABSs in the same frequency band,
- 10 + 10 aggregated (AAI + Mixed) – PCI 0, PCI 1 (Down Town)
- 2x 10 (mixed) - PCI 2, PCI 3 (Urban)
- 10 (mixed) - PCI 2 or PCI 3 (sub-urban or rural)
Because the configurations are different, 4 different physical carrier indices(PCI) are required.
If the operator has two bands (2.3GHz and 2.5 GHz and 20MHz each), and same three types of ABSs exist, 8 PCI should be assigned.
If the operator has another band at FDD band è we should add more PCI and How can we do with 3 bit?
We can also consider the following case
- Some operator doesn’t have frequency band at a rural area can lease a carrier from different operator in a different band.
- 40MHz with 4x10 with different MCIs.
If 6 bit is not a severe overhead, I hope to keep the number of bits as 6 bits.
I just hope you can have a time to think about it.
Thank you for reading this.
I have uploaded today outcome of Multicarrier Adhoc discussion to the temp folder on the server.
We quickly went though all MC comments including the control message related comments,
and agreed on the recommended resolutions for 23 comments (These are marked with ‘X’).
We also agreed that the Multicarrier Adhoc will cover the following 3 comments:
#345, #012 (AAI PHY), #657 (MAC control message; general MAC)
In addition, the comment #450 shall be discussion under the area of L-MAC (HARQ).
Ron, please take this comment.
We will resume discussion tomorrow 7pm.
Thanks and Best regards,
Jaeweon Cho, Ph.D.
Samsung Electronics, Korea