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

Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 26 Preamble Ad-Hoc group CC sum mary

Title: Message
Niftily
Your position is fanny, You will go for the more complicated one and if not you will go for the pure one with no performance. 
 
I am very disappointed from your position which is:  "As more the standard is confuse as more you are happy".
 
I will not be surprise if in your next step you will go against your 256 FFT design and ask to change the 256 preamble as well. or midamble or....
Zion

From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Naftali Chayat
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 11:25 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 26 Preamble Ad-Hoc group CC sum mary

Dear Peiying, All,
 
Looking at the strawpoll summary results, it seems that it wasn't clear to all whether the vote is individual or one vote per company. Looking at the results, however, it would not change much, so I do not want to dwell on this issue, just comment that it needs to be clarified in advance.
 
I would also like to clarify Alvarion's position in voting. We presented a PRBS based design, but we got convinced that GCL based design has significant advantages therefore we voted for GCL. Some might interpret it as an abandonement of our contribution on PRBS. If at the end GCL is voted down, we think that within the realm of PRBS solutions our design has advantages which are worth incorporating into the resulting solution, so _IF_ the PRBS based approach prevails we would like our contribution to be considered in this context.
 
Best Regards,
 
Naftali Chayat
Alvarion
-----Original Message-----
From: Peiying Zhu [mailto:pyzhu@NORTELNETWORKS.COM]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:45 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [PREAMBLE] Aug 26 Preamble Ad-Hoc group CC sum mary

Dear preamblers:

Here is a summary of Aug. 25 CC

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

Adavcom, Alvarion; Beceem;  ETRI; Hanaro Telecom; Hexagon; Intel; KT; Motorola; Nextel; Nortel; Runcom; SOLiD Technologies; Samsung; Sprint; ZTE

We discussed the following items:

1. Sequence poll results

We conducted straw polls through Email on sequence design

Poll 1: Do you support PN type sequence?

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

Poll 3: Which sequence design do you support?1-5

Total 52 votes were received through Email, the summary of the votes are:

  yes no abstain total voters Yes percentage    
Poll 1 results 37 14 1 52 71.15%    
Poll 2 results 15 36 1 52 28.85%    
               
  1 (Alvarion) 2 (Motorola) 3 (Runcom) 4 (Samsung) 5 (ZTE) abstain Total voters
Poll 3 resutls 0 8 23 13 5 3 52
Percentage 0.00% 15.38% 44.23% 25.00% 9.62% 5.77%  

Company # of votes
Adavcom 1
Airspan  1
Alvarion 3
Beceem 10
ETRI 1
Hexagon 1
Intel 10
KT 1
Motorola 4
NextTel 1
Nortel 4
Runcom 6
Samsung 1
ST 1
WaveIP  1
ZTE 5

Note: votes are counted on individual base. Please see details in http://wirelessman.dyndns.org/cgi-script/CSUpload//upload/temp%252edb/PreambleVotingResults.xls. One late vote from Samuel DH Kang (Intel) (yes for poll 1, yes for poll 1, 3 for poll 3) was not counted.

2. Update of sequence harmonization

There was a further discussion on GCL complexity. There were different view on how to evaluate the complexity. Jason from ZTE presented more detailed information on CAZAC sequence and simulation results. Jiho from Samsung presented the simulation results using the existing preamble design.

There was still no consensus on harmonization.

3. Mid amble

Ad-hoc reached the consensus to support the midamble concept. Sirram presented the joint proposal from Beceem, Samsung and Nortel. Members from Runcom, Motorola, TI and ZTE suggested that further harmonization is required for the proposal.They are interested in joining the harmonization discussion. Please send your input to Sriram.

4. Ad-hoc conclusions

We discussed how do we conclude the preamble ad-hoc outcome. Here are the agreed points:

1) There is a consensus to include a Common Sync Symbols with time domain repetition structure and not change the existing preamble. However, there are two different views on location and interval of the Sync symbol and the mandatory vs. option feature. Two contributions 261 and 327 captured these two views. We conducted a straw poll on these two views on Aug. 23 CC, the results are:

Members who are against the contribution 261: Jiho from Samsung

Members who are against the contribution 327:

Yossi from Samsung,

Sirram from Beceem,

Izhar from Adavcom,

Avi from Hexagon

Mark from Motorola

Joss from Intel

The poll indicates that contribution 261 has the majority support. Wen needs to do a revision to make it clear that Common Sync Symbol is a postamble.

2) There is no consensus reached for sequence design. We conducted a straw poll through Email to get people's preference,  see results above. 

3) There is a consensus  to support the midamble concept. The detailed contribution needs to be further harmonized.

I would like to thank everyone for your hard work and very late night discussions. Hope that you had a good experience. Even though there is no more official Ad-hoc CC, several people express the willingness to have further discussions. I volunteered to set up a Email list for those interested to facilitate the discussion. I have not received any Email request to join the list. Unfortunately, I will not be able to access my Emails for two days. Maybe you can continue the discussion through the reflector list.

Regards,

Peiying



This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com

************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com

************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************