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

[Jack Garrison <gjg@telus.net>]

Barry:

Referenced to comment 132, I think the section should stay in as the RABC study
is valid work of other parties. In fact, we reference their study as [27].
Perhaps Remi could provide a brief summary as he chairs the committee. If we
can't get a timely input, then delete the section.

For comment 130, I think that George may have thought that the overflow is a new
table. While the overflow needs to be eliminated, I think he really wants to see
a uniform font and style in all of the document tables.

Jack

Barry Lewis wrote:

> 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