| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Carlos and all,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions by Email and in the conference call. Let me try to reply Carlos’s comments/questions。
1) Usage model 7: what is the difference between this usage model and the one from 11ad (09/583r0)?
A: Category 1-6 are WFA usage models and category 7 is a new usage model in 11ad. The 11aj PAR requires that the 11aj amendment shall maintain backward compatibility with 802.11ad and maintains the 802.11 user experience. Therefore, the WFA and 11ad usage models are also applicable to 11aj. SO we reserved category 1 to 7 in the 11aj usage models document. Category 8 and category 9 are new usage models in 11aj usage models document. Some of these usage models may not be really “new”, but we would like to highlight portable device applications and wireless networking application of the mm-wave technology.
2) Usage models 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, and 9a:
a. in all these models, there are statements such as “As the 45GHz frequency band has better propagation characteristics than the 60 GHz frequency band, link distance will be larger and power consumption will be lower when devices operate in Chinese 45GHz frequency band.” This is not text that is supposed to be in a usage model. Usage models describe environments, traffic, requirements, etc., but do not describe what spectrum to use, what solution is better than another, etc. Usage models are often technology/spectrum neutral. So, I would suggest to remove this text from each of the usage models listed above.
b. Similarly to 2(a) above, there is text in the usage models stating “High performance links (2.16GHz bandwidth channel) can carry high throughput traffic, and low-power links(Chinese 1.08GHz bandwidth channel) can carry traffic with lower power requirement.” Again, this is not text appropriate for a usage model. Not only that, this speculates on the benefits of a solution tied to given band, which I am sure not everyone would agree. For the same reasons above, I would propose to have this text removed as well from all usage models.
c. In general, any text that prescribes a given band, or that compares that one band is better than another for power/throughput, etc., needs to be removed, since they don’t belong to usage model descriptions.
A: Yes, your point is right. The conference call also gave similar comments and suggestions. I will delete the inappropriate text in the document.
Further comments and suggestions are welcome, please feel free to contact me. Thank you!
Regards,
Jiamin
Hello All,
As I was not able to attend the last 11aj conf call, I would like to raise some comments/questions on the usage models noted in 12/1245r0 (and 12/1244r0):
1) Usage model 7: what is the difference between this usage model and the one from 11ad (09/583r0)?
2) Usage models 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, and 9a:
a. in all these models, there are statements such as “As the 45GHz frequency band has better propagation characteristics than the 60 GHz frequency band, link distance will be larger and power consumption will be lower when devices operate in Chinese 45GHz frequency band.” This is not text that is supposed to be in a usage model. Usage models describe environments, traffic, requirements, etc., but do not describe what spectrum to use, what solution is better than another, etc. Usage models are often technology/spectrum neutral. So, I would suggest to remove this text from each of the usage models listed above.
b. Similarly to 2(a) above, there is text in the usage models stating “High performance links (2.16GHz bandwidth channel) can carry high throughput traffic, and low-power links(Chinese 1.08GHz bandwidth channel) can carry traffic with lower power requirement.” Again, this is not text appropriate for a usage model. Not only that, this speculates on the benefits of a solution tied to given band, which I am sure not everyone would agree. For the same reasons above, I would propose to have this text removed as well from all usage models.
c. In general, any text that prescribes a given band, or that compares that one band is better than another for power/throughput, etc., needs to be removed, since they don’t belong to usage model descriptions.
Thanks,
Carlos.
-----Original Message-----
From: *** 802.11 TGaj - China Mill-meter Wave *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGAJ@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jianhan Liu
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:39 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAJ] online meeting link
Hi Folks,
As to the usage model 8a, when we talk about portable devices, do we need to seperate mobile devices (small footsize devices, such as cellular phone, Ipod) and normal portable devices (relatively large size devices, tablet pad, laptop, etc.)?
As we know, for small footsize devices, antenna array size and power comsuption limitaions/reqirements are quite different from those of large footsize portable devices. Given the boom and diversity of portable devices, maybe it is wise to seperate into two categories (of course how to classify into two categories needs more discussion.) I think these two usage models will affect the function requirements on link budget and performance requirement. It will also may help for future implementation on cost and flexibility.
Any thoughts are very welcome.
Thanks,
Jianhan Liu
Mediatek USA
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-tgaj and then press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-tgaj and then press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-tgaj and then press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________