Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 2 Preamble Ad-Hoc group telecon ferenc

-----Original Message-----
From: Kiernan, Brian G. [mailto:Brian.Kiernan@InterDigital.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:38 AM
To: Zhu, Peiying [CAR:DP13:EXCH]; STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 2 Preamble Ad-Hoc group telecon ference summary

Peiyung et al,

While I can certainly understand the temptation to have a smaller e-mail list for certain types of discussions, discussions that take place on such a list cannot be considered as being done under the auspices of the entire ad-hoc. Any output from such a "private" e-mail list must be brought back to the full ad-hoc for discussion and consensus for it to be considered an ad-hoc output. Note, that doesn't mean you can't set up the smaller list, just that you need to recognize that the output from that list is NOT considered an ad-hoc consensus output until the entire ad-hoc has reviewed and blessed it.

Keep on truckin'

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Peiying Zhu [mailto:pyzhu@NORTELNETWORKS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 03:46 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 2 Preamble Ad-Hoc group telecon ference summary

Dear All:

Thank you for joining the CC. Here is the summary of the meeting:

Companies present:

Alvarion; Arraycomm; Beceem; ETRI; Hanaro Telecom; Intel; KT; LGE; Motorola; Nextel; Nortel; TI; Proxim; Qualcomm; Runcom; SOLiD Technologies; Samsung; Sprint; ZTE

I may miss few companies joined at a later time. Please note that for the next CC, I will open the bridge 10 minutes before the scheduled meeting so that people can dial in and we can start the meeting on time.

1. Discussion on comments related to requirement document from the last CC

Make it clear that one OFDM symbol preamble is preferable
Operation mode identification is not agreed requirement from the last CC
Yossi's Email comments, I attached his Email here for your convenience

There was a long debate over whether we need to enhance the current preamble design for FFT size other than 2k. Both Zion and Yossi from Runcom explained the current preamble design and stated that the current preamble works well for both fixed and mobile case. There is no need to improve the design for mobility. Some other companies expressed different views on these issues. Some of these difference may come from the different assumptions.

Actions:

Peiying will make sure that the first two points are clearly stated in the requirement document.
Runcom to submit a contribution explaining how the current design works in multi-cell mobility environment so that everyone has the same basic understanding of design intention and have more time to think over the issues offline.

2. Review of contributions related to preamble structure design

In general, the contributions are classified into two categories: structure vs. sequence design. I updated the spreadsheet to indicate the category for each contribution, please see the document http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/preamble_Adhoc_Conntribution_list_2.xls.

We had some difficult to hear the presentation from LGE. Please review it offline and send your comments/questions.

Due to the time limitation, we were not able to review the contributions related to sequence design. Jeff from Motorola is doing simulation to comparing different sequences, there is a suggest to take consideration of implementation impairments such as timing and frequency offset for comparison. Jeff will share the results with everyone.

Actions: Everyone

Start offline Email discussion on the contributions. For the contribution presenters, please provide answers to the questions/issues raised if you have not answered it during the meeting.
Review the contributions related to sequence design
Discuss the possible harmonization among the contributions through Email, we need to reduce the number of contributions by the next CC.
Do you feel that we should set up a smaller Email distribution list to discuss the technical details so not to floor the reflector? Please let me know your view.

3. Next conference call:

Tuesday, Aug 10 --- 20:00-22:00 USA pacific time, 12 for Seoul, 6 for TelAviv, 23 for Ottawa

The conference bridge is:

1+(613)7650160
Pass code: 3958089#

Please remember to dial # after the pass code.

Regards,

Peiying

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhu, Peiying [CAR:DP13:EXCH]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 11:15 AM
To: Zhu, Peiying [CAR:DP13:EXCH]; 'STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 2 Preamble Ad-Hoc group teleconference reminder

Dear All:

This is a reminder for tomorrow's conference call. I have not received any comments on the proposal extending the call duration. Tentatively, I put a 2-hour call here.

Tuesday, Aug 3 --- 7:00-9:00 am USA pacific time, 11 pm for Seoul, 5 pm for TelAviv, 10 am for Ottawa

The conference bridge is:

(613)7650160
Pass code: 3958089

Proposed Agenda:

1. Review contributions

2. Discuss possible harmonization

Regards,

Peiying

PS: Please upload new contributions before 9:00pm Aug. 2 US pacific time.

There is a contribution from Beceem suggesting to include an evaluation table in each contribution to facilitate the discussion. Please take a look.

http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/merits_table.pdf