Re: stds-802-16-tg2: Re: Letter Ballot Comment 39 Resolution

[Jack Garrison <gjg@telus.net>]

Barry:

Based on your last e-mail, it looks like you have overcome the problem with
comment #108. But just in case, I have sent you a revised update (rev10) that
breaks up the comment with hard carriage returns within the cell. If this
doesn't work, then I could provide you a version in Word and we could see where
we could go from there.

Previously, I stated that writing long text in Excel was akin to trying to make
love to a rattlesnake. I was wrong - it is much worse!

I have also copied John, as the introduction to C makes reference to his
simulations.

Jack

Barry Lewis wrote:

> Jack,
> Thanks for the reply, and considering my proposal. I agree with your
> comments.
>
> Regarding comment 108, I have some problems when I try to look at the
> resolution part. Basically it does horrible things to my machine including
> major crashes that can only be overcome by switching off!
> However I see no-one else complaining so perhaps it is something specific to
> me only. But it fills me with dread thinking of trying to paste your
> resolution into my part of the spreadsheet.
>
> Perhaps there is another way of contributing the resolution rather than in a
> cell in the spreadsheet? I've left a message with Phil.
>
> Cheers
>
> Barry.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack Garrison <gjg@telus.net>
> To: Barry Lewis <radcom25@dircon.co.uk>
> Cc: tg2_reflector <stds-802-16-tg2@ieee.org>
> Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: stds-802-16-tg2: Re: Letter Ballot Comment 39 Resolution
>
> >Barry:
> >
> >I have no problem with your revised text related to p22, line 7 and will
> adjust
> >my comment response accordingly. But I would like to see an additional line
> >following, that makes sure that the reader clearly understands that if two
> guard
> >channels are required that the total bandwidth required is equal to the
> >bandwidth of the large carrier plus the bandwidth of the small carrier. It
> >should be made clear that we are not talking about twice the bandwidth of
> the
> >large carrier.
> >
> >I will also loook at p21, line 44 again. The problem here is trying to
> clearly
> >state that in some cases the guard channel is going to be a physical
> frequency
> >separation requirement, in others it could be just a polarization change or
> some
> >other mitigation strategy. Hence the use of the adjective "equivalent"
> >
> >Referenced to 108, my response is a mess as it is so long. I went back and
> put
> >in carriage returns within the cell. This cleans up the pop down text
> window but
> >screws up the normal text display as it now appears as a vetical wrap
> within 1
> >cell. I think that I will leave it as is and let you deal with it.
> >
> >None of this is water under the bridge yet. I have yet to post my responses
> to
> >the reflector. Probably later today - or is Phil supposed to do this with
> the
> >complete set of responses?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Jack
> >
> >
> >
> >Barry Lewis wrote:
> >
> >> Jack,
> >> I meant to reply to the message you sent regarding my comments on "guard
> >> bands" etc.. Although to some extent this is water under the bridge as
> you
> >> have now sent your resolution comments.
> >> The problem is that it seems what is good for one scenario is not
> >> necessarily good (but it might be!) for another which makes it extremely
> >> difficult to come with an all encompassing recommendation regarding guard
> >> frequency without lots of caveats. Therefore I would support your
> proposal
> >> to somehow retain the existing text and supplement it with my comment.
> The
> >> difficulty is finding a balance between a firm recommendation and
> something
> >> that recommends nothing except a list of options with no way out. (To
> some
> >> extent this was the rationale behind my proposed deletion of the word
> >> "usually" in the second line of Recommendation 8).
> >>
> >> But, now I've looked at your resolution of Comment 39 and your sixth
> >> paragraph dealing with p22, line 7 doesn't make sense as you've mixed
> "same
> >> channel bandwidth" and "wider system" in the same sentence.
> >>
> >> Can I make another proposal to resolve the comment;
> >> p22, line 7: Delete the existing first sentence and replace with:
> >> "In most co-polarised cases, where transmissions in each block are
> employing
> >> the same channel bandwidth, the guard frequency should be equal to one
> >> equivalent channel. Where the transmissions in neighbouring blocks employ
> >> significantly different channel bandwidths, then, it is likely that a
> guard
> >> frequency equal to one equivalent channel of the widest system will be
> >> adequate. However analysis suggests that under certain deployment
> >> circumstances this may not offer sufficient protection and that guard
> >> frequency equal to one channel at the edge of each operators block may be
> >> required."
> >>
> >> I think this combines both concepts in an acceptable manner and the last
> two
> >> sentences can also used to resolve comments 45 and 46.
> >>
> >> The only other issue I have on this is what is the equivalent of guard
> >> frequency on p21 line 44? I don't understand this. Surely some guard
> >> frequency is required unless specific mitigation techniques are employed
> >> which are detailed elsewhere. These may have the effect of reducing
> >> (possibly to zero) the guard frequency requirement.
> >>
> >> Lastly, thanks for your help on comments 108, 110 and 112.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Barry Lewis
> >> RA London
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jack Garrison <gjg@telus.net>
> >> To: Philip Whitehead <pw@radiantnetworks.co.uk>; Demos Kostas
> >> <dkostas@adaptivebroadband.com>; Adrian Florea <adrianf@newbridge.com>;
> Vito
> >> Scaringi <vscaring@newbridge.com>; Bob Whiting <rwhiting@gabrielnet.com>;
> >> Remi Chayer <rchayer@harris.com>; Paul Thompson <paulcom@paulcom.com>;
> Barry
> >> Lewis <lewisb@ra..gtnet.gov.uk>; Reza Arefi <reza.arefi@wfinet.com>; Andy
> >> McGregor <mcgregor@nortelnetworks.com>
> >> Cc: Bob Foster <bfoster@wavtrace.com>
> >> Date: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:57 AM
> >> Subject: Letter Ballot Comment Resolution
> >>
> >> >References:
> >> >
> >> >Ballot Comments 9, 15 and 16
> >> >Contribution 802.16.2c-00/22
> >> >
> >> >Hi All,
> >> >
> >> >I decided to look at Barry's comments in further detail as I had placed
> >> >a "not sure" action response against them. Here, Barry wants added or
> >> >replacement wording so that the same area guard band "may" require a
> >> >spacing equal to the carrier bandwidth of both operators. This would
> >> >apply when the 2 operators are employing significantly different carrier
> >> >bandwidths.
> >> >
> >> >In his prior contribution, Barry modified the ETSI Type B emissions mask
> >> >to account for reality, i.e. the emissions will probably continue to
> >> >roll off beyond a 2'nd adjacent spacing. But across the spacing we are
> >> >dealing with, this does not come into play and Barry's mask is the same
> >> >as that of ETSI.
> >> >
> >> >In his contribution, Barry examined the impact of a spacing equal to the
> >> >sum of a 1/2 carrier spacing of the wide bandwidth carrier (BW1) and the
> >> >narrow bandwidth carrier (BW2). Hence, the spacing would be BW1/2 +
> >> >BW2/2. The contribution also looked at a spacing equal to BW1 + BW2. But
> >> >what was not looked at was a spacing equal to just BW1. Would it be much
> >> >different than BW1 + BW2?
> >> >
> >> >I decided to run it through my archaic computational computer system.
> >> >
> >> >Using Barry's example of a bandwidth ratio BW1/BW2 = 4/1, I got the
> >> >following results:
> >> >
> >> >Cxr BW                    Spacing                    ACI
> >> >
> >> >BW2=BW1                BW1                       47 dB
> >> >
> >> >BW2=1/4BW1           BW1                       50.5 dB
> >> >
> >> >BW2=1/4BW1           BW1+BW2            53.8 dB
> >> >
> >> >So, by increasing the spacing by an extra BW2, we pick up about 3 dB.
> >> >Assuming that the narrow band BW2 system runs at a 6 dB lower threshold,
> >> >we are now back to about the same effective ACI values as the equal
> >> >bandwidth systems. I therefore conclude that the existing wording should
> >> >stand and be supplemented by Barry's proposed wording or the equivalent.
> >> >
> >> >But there is one thing that our document does not address; who gives up
> >> >the BW1 + BW2 bandwidth? Should a BW1 operator be the victim because his
> >> >neighbor decides to run narrow band or vice-versa? I know we can't
> >> >answer this one, nor should we.
> >> >
> >> >Happy New Year,
> >> >
> >> >Jack
> >> >
> >> >PS. It is now the 28'th and I haven't seen a voting update. I assume
> >> >Roger is off skiing. What happens if  there is less than a 50% voter
> >> >turnout?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
> >