Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 23 Preamble Ad-Hoc group CC sum mary

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

Dear preamblers:

Here is a summary of the today's CC.

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

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

I may miss few people, some joined after the meeting started, I did not checked the name. Please let me know if I missed you.

We discussed the following items:

1. Yossi's contribution on simulation results: <http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Preamble_FrameDetection_1.doc>

Yossi presented some simulation results based on the current preamble design. Several people asked questions for clarifications in term of simulation condition etc.. Jiho indicated that he tried the same simulation as Yossi, however, he could not reproduce the same results for 2dB shadowing case, please see Jiho's Email. There might be some inconsistence between simulation assumptions. Jiho suggested to have more time to verify the simulation results.

2. Status updated of common sync symbol

There are few contributions uploaded and comments in the database. Please see the document for preamble and midamble related contributions. <http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Session33%20contributions%20organization%20and%20overview%20document%20Rev.4.xls>. Please note that Contribution 241 from Motorola can be found in <http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_241.pdf>. The rest of the contributions can be found in <http://tge.wirelessman.org/>.

I submitted a comment (# 1007) for the eventual ad-hoc harmonized proposal.

There are basically two joint contributions related to common sync symbol: contribution number 261 and 327. Seung Joo gave a short update on the contribution 327. Wen gave an update on the contribution 261. The basic concept of both contributions is the same, however, the actual location, the interval of the common sync symbols and mandatory vs. optional are different. Members involved in both contributions are requested to continue the harmonization efforts.

Chair asked for a straw poll on both proposals to give indications of member's preference, also in the event that no unanimous agreement can be reached, Chair will present the results of straw poll in the cover page. Here is the result.

Members who are against the contribution 261:

Jiho from Samsung

Members who are against the contribution 327:

Yossi from Samsung

Sirram from Beceem (concern on overhead)

Izhar from Adavcom

Avi from Hexagon

Mark from Motorola (reservation on overhead)

Joss from Intel

Masoud from Nextel asked to give him some time to read the contributions before he gave the answer. For 261, he is ok if it is post amble.

2. Status update on sequence harmonization

Jeff provided an update on his complexity comparison results. He prepared a contribution, and did not have enough time to upload before the meeting. It is now on the server: <http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Motorola_GCL_fast%20cell_search.pdf>. Please take a look. Jeff thinks that ZTE's sequence design has a similar complexity as GCL sequence, Jason disagreed. He said that he will also upload a document on his finding.

Yossi, Tal, Jason and Seung Joo each gave an update on their thinking of sequence harmonization. Basically, there are two types of sequence design proposed: PN type, similar to the existing sequence, polyphase type, such as (CGL and CAZAC) Seung Joo think that there might be some potential of harmonization with Tal. All the other members think that it is difficult to harmonize, basically we need to select one sequence design.

Jose asked for a clarification on whether sequence designs are for the legacy preamble or Common Sync. The answer is for both. It is preferred to use the same kind of sequence if there is no specific technical reason. In case that no consensus can be made regarding the sequence, then common sync symbol will use the current PN type of sequence.

We had a discussion on what kind of conclusion we want to give as ad-hoc group. Several options were proposed: 1) no consensus 2) no change, i.e., use truncated 2k sequence 3) minimum change, with some improvement of 2k truncation, i.e., runcom's new hand crafted sequences 3) straw poll for each contributions. People agreed to do a straw poll so we get some indication on people's preference. Mark asked to delay the straw poll in order to give people some time to read new contribution on the evaluation of sequences. We agreed to do a straw poll through Email. Please read the document from Jeff and all the other sequence related contributions before you reply the poll. The poll deadline will be Aug. 25 noon US pacific time. To avoid flooding the reflector, please send Email to me, I will do a count and report the results.

Poll 1: Do you support PN type sequence? (yes or no or abstain)

Poll 2: Do you support Poly phase type sequence? (yes or no or abstain)

Poll 3: Which sequence design do you support? (Chose 1-5 or abstain)

1) Contribution from Tal (Alvarion): <http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/Preamble_Adhoc_Alvarion_PRBS%20based_preamble_design_r1.pdf>

2) Contribution 241 from Jeff et al.(Motorola): <http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_241.pdf>

3) Contribution from Yossi et al.(Runcom): <http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_125.pdf>

4) Contribution from Jiho et al.(Samsung): <http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/contrib/C80216e-04_164r1.pdf>

5) Contribution 245 from Jason et al.(ZTE): <http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/TGe%252edb/C80216e%2d04_265.pdf>

3. Mid amble

The original requirement for preamble design is to provide channel estimation for both MIMO and SISO. During the discussion, people prefer to separate MIMO channel estimation from the preamble design due to the backward compatibility issue. Hence, several contributions related to Midamble are uploaded to handle MIMO channel estimation. Sirram suggested that we should deal with this issue in the preamble ad-hoc group. He agreed to co-ordinate the mid-amble harmonization and discussed the result in next CC.

4. Next CC:

Aug. 25, Wednesday --20:00-22:00 USA pacific time, 12:00 for Seoul, 6:00 for TelAviv, 23:00 for Ottawa

Regards,

Peiying