Hi, Mark Rison and all,
I took CID 4224 today thinking that it was a comment on the TX flatness for a PHY operating in the 2.4, 5 or 6 GHz.
However, the CID is on the TX flatness for the CMMG PHY.
While I thought it might still be trivial to resolve, I see multiple issues which will require a CMMG expert to deal with.
Comment is:
|
CID Clause Page.Line |
Comment |
Proposed Change |
|
4224 25.6.9.2 3804.00 |
"the average energy of the OFDM symbols constellations" is grammatically broken |
Change each of the 2 instances of the cited text to "the average energy of the OFDM symbols" |
Context is:
REVme D3.0 P3804:
|
|
Issues I see include (outside of the comment by the commenter):
- 540 MHz
- Subcarrier +70 is included in both the inner tones spectral flatness and outer tones spectral flatness
- Inner tones (-70~-2, +2~+70) spectral flatness is measured against the average energy of tones -70~-2, +2~+70.
And outer tones (-89~-71, +70~+89) spectral flatness is measured against the average energy of tones -89~-71, +70~+89.
i. I.e., one could transmit a waveform with a large power difference between the inner and outer tones, but still pass the TX flatness requirement.
- 1080 MHz
- Tone index +146 does not have a spectral flatness requirement. I.e., one could transmit a waveform with very high/low energy on that tone, and pass the TX flatness requirement.
- Unlike the 540 MHz, the normalization factor for the outer tones is the average power over ‘all’ tones. C.f., the 540 MHz has the normalization factor to be the average power of only
the ‘outer’ tones.
I am not able to determine whether these are intentional, or typos, and hence unable to provide a resolution.
I would suggest someone familiar with CMMG to take this on instead.
Regards,
Youhan
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1