Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 16 Preamble Ad-

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

We, Samsung, submitted our contributions about preamble (contribution #327) and OMI (contribution #328).

From: Peiying Zhu [mailto:pyzhu@NORTELNETWORKS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:49 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 16 Preamble Ad-Hoc group CC sum mary

Dear All:

Hope that everyone submitted your comments on time and managed to get some rest. Unfortunately, we still have some unfinished business here. We need to resume our efforts for harmonization. Can you please kindly let me know if you have submitted comments/contributions related to preamble?

Here is a summary of the last CC. I apologize that it takes longer than usual to get this back to you, I also had to catch the deadline.

Attendees: due to a larger number of participants, I only captured the company names here.

Adacom, Alvarion; Beceem; Broadband Mobile Technologies; ETRI; Hanaro Telecom; Hexagon; Intel; KT; LGE; Motorola; Nortel; TI; Proxim; Qualcomm; Runcom; SOLiD Technologies; Samsung; Sprint; ZTE

We discussed the following items:

1. Status update of sequence harmonization

Jeff took an action to evaluate various sequence performance in terms of PAPR, cross correlation, complexity. He indicated that the results on PAPR and cross correlation were reported in two previous contributions: http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/80216e_Comments_on_Preamble_Design.ppt and http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/80216e%2d04_PreambleAdhoc_temp001.pdf. If you have not read the documents and are interested in the results, please review them before the next CC. Please voice your opinions whether you agree the evaluation. Jeff also mentioned that there were not enough Email discussions, I encourage people, especially those with contributions, get discussion going.

There was a discussion on complexity: what is the threshold? Jeff indicated that he does not have enough details on the process of synchronization and cell search using the current preamble design. Zion gave an explanation. Jeff needed more details. Zion and Jeff agreed to have an offline discussion on the details.

The original assumption on sequence evaluation is that it will be done in parallel of structure design. However, Sriram pointed it out that the complexity evaluation depends on the structure design. We ended it up to proceed to the agenda item 2.

Anand presented the idea of time domain sequence for synchronization rather than frequency domain sequence. There was a long discussion on this. Naftali requested to have a straw poll on the time domain sequence, no one supported the proposal.

People agreed to continue the sequence harmonization in the coming week.

2. Status update of the draft proposal on preamble structure

Wen updated the proposal based on the agreement of Aug. 13's CC.

Zion raised the issue on the "common Sync symbol is mandatory for BS". He said that he was temporary dropped out of the call during the Aug. 13 CC, therefore missed that part of discussion. Avi also asked to clarification on "minatory" after I sent the meeting summary. Several other members stated that "common Sync symbol" must be mandatory to be useful. This issues was not resolved during the meeting.

Wonil raised the issue on OMI support and using fixed location for the common sync symbol. The current thinking is to use it as post amble. Some members thought that from post amble, it is not always possible to know the exact location of legacy preamble without further search in the TDD mode. Everyone agrees that it is better to use the fixed location, we need to find a good position.

Due to these issues raised and the time limitation, I recommended that we do not submit the proposal as the ad-hoc harmonized contribution, rather as a joint proposal. We agreed to continue the ad-hoc discussion and update it in the reply comment, hopefully by then, we can reach the consensus.

3. Next CC

We did not have time to set up another CC. I propose two options here:

Option 1: one CC on Monday Aug. 23 --- 7:00-9:00 am USA pacific time, 11 pm for Seoul, 5 pm for TelAviv, 10 am for Ottawa

Option 2: one CC on Thursday Aug. 26 -- 20:00-22:00 USA pacific time, 12:00 for Seoul, 6:00 for TelAviv, 23:00 for Ottawa

This leaves us another slot on Monday morning if needed.

Please let me know your preference.

The conference bridge is:

1+(613)7650160
Pass code: 3958089#

Regards,

Peiying

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhu, Peiying [CAR:DP13:EXCH]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:33 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 16 Preamble Ad-Hoc group CC rem inder

Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 16 Preamble Ad-Hoc group CC sum mary