stds-802-16-tg2: Comments on Annexes C, D and E

["Barry Lewis" <radcom25@dircon.co.uk>]

Ref comment numbers 106 to 137 inclusive.

Comments 106,107,109, 112-114, 116, 118-121,126, 128,129,131, 135-137 are
all "very" editorial and are acceptable without any difficulties.

However I have some issues with the following that participants may be able
to help with:

Regarding comment 108 relating to Appendices C1, C2 and C3, I noted Jacks
previous mail on the issue and perhaps whilst dealing with that, comments
110 and 111 could be covered as they refer to text  detailing Jacks
simulations. - Thanks.

Comment 122 (Phil Dubya's comment and section), requests removal of the
square brackets around "40km". However I am uncertain whether removal of the
brackets is a complete solution as I am unsure what the words "The guideline
for PMP to PMP network separation..." on the same line mean and the link
with sections 4 and 8. I propose removing [40km] and replacing with 35km
which seems to be the appropriate figure when looking at these other
sections.

Comments 124 and 125 from Avi Freedman, I would not agree to changing Net
Filter Rejection (NFR) to Net Filter Discrimination (NFD). However as the
originator of this text I would agree that the term NFR is inappropriate and
that NFD is no better. Therefore I propose the following two sentences to
replace the text in line 28 of page 99:
"In assessing the off-frequency interference levels the transmitter masks of
Figure C.10 were assumed, based upon modified spectrum masks from EN301-213
[6] (112MHz systems). Increased maximum attenuation values were assumed."
Delete the Figure C.10 title. (Except Figure C.10 - in bold!) and replace
the x-axis title with "Attenuation (dBc)".

Comment 127 - I am asked to resolve my own comment here. Any objections to
acceptance of this comment? I believe the existing Table C.1 to be
confusing.

Comment 130 from George Fishel, I don't understand the comment but I assume
he means take whatever action is necessary to keep all the Table D.1
information together. On my print out the word "adjacency" drops over the
page in two places. If so - then agreed.

Comment 132 request deletion of clause D.16(sic) as it is incomplete.
However it reads a bit like a place holder for some input which has not
arrived. Can anyone throw any light on this?
If not then I agree to the deletion.

Comments 133 and 134, I am again asked to resolve my own comments. Any
objections to acceptance?

Thanks, all the best for 2001 and hope you are all having as much fun as me!

Cheers

Barry Lewis
RA London