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

[STDS-802-16] updated draft 802.16e comment resolutions to review



I have posted an updated set of resolutions as "80216-05_072r2draft1.zip".

The changes from the previous version are in 
Comments 8026, 8035, and 8007. The resolution of 
8007 updates the reference to a new contribution 
version: IEEE C802-6e-05/402r2.

Also, a new comment 8047 has been added and accepted.

Roger

>I have posted a draft set of resolutions to the 
>comments received in the 802.16e/D11 recirc 
>(plus a few late comments as well). You may 
>review these by downloading 
>80216-05_072r2draft.zip from:
>	http://temp.wirelessman.org
>The referenced contributions are at:
>	http://tge.wirelessman.org
>
>These resolutions are close to final, and the 
>Editor is implementing them. However, if you see 
>any errors in the resolutions, let us know ASAP. 
>We intend to open the recirc by the deadline of 
>Monday 17 October.
>
>Roger
>
>
>>In regard to the 802.16e comment resolutions, 
>>Please note that Phil Barber is proposing 
>>resolutions to comments 8006, 8009, 8011, 8012, 
>>8014, 8015, 8016, 8040, and 8044 (which he 
>>calls "Comment Late 1") in IEEE 
>>C802.16e-05/404r1:
>>	http://tge.wirelessman.org
>>
>>Phil has revised his proposals in response to 
>>other reply comments received. He believes that 
>>his revisions address the other reply comments 
>>and provide a harmonized result. I very much 
>>appreciate Phil's efforts on this.
>>
>>Please take a look at Phil's proposals and let 
>>him (and the rest of us) know of any concerns. 
>>As you have seen, he plans to update his 
>>proposals tonight.
>>
>>We are still open to input regarding the other 
>>comments as well. We plan to complete a set of 
>>comment resolutions by October 12, so we would 
>>appreciate any input by October 11.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>>Absolutely correct. I am afraid I made those 
>>>couple of errors transcribing the equation in 
>>>8.4.6.1.2.2 into the proper format. There was 
>>>not intent to change the equation from the 
>>>revised equation in 16e/D11, just put it into 
>>>the proper format. I have corrected the error 
>>>and have a revised document C802.16e-05/404r2 
>>>which I am currently holding pending receiving 
>>>any other comments indicating errors in 404r1. 
>>>I will upload the revised 404r2 at the end of 
>>>business today PST.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Phillip Barber
>>>Huawei
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>From: <mailto:jaeweon.cho@samsung.com>JaeWeon Cho
>>>To: <mailto:STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org>STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
>>>Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 9:58 PM
>>>Subject: [STDS-802-16] Comment on C802.16e-05/404r1
>>>
>>>Phillip,
>>>
>>>I have just one comment on your reply comment (to #8025) in 404r1.
>>>
>>>#8025, Remedy 16. (i.e. replacing the equation in line 15-18, page 426)
>>>I don’t agree with this proposed change.
>>>              The number of clusters (i.e. 
>>>Nclusters) is ‘120’ in Cor1, but it varies 
>>>with FFT sizes in 16e.
>>>              So, the current equation in 
>>>16e/D11 cannot be replaced with that in 
>>>Cor1/D5.
>>>              If the remedy 16 in 404r1 is just 
>>>for better looking of the equation,
>>>          ‘120’ shall be replaced with ‘Ncluster’ in the equation and
>>>‘All SC indicator = 0’ with ‘Use All AC Indicator = 0’ (typo in Cor1.)
>>>
>>>I agree with the other reply comments in 404r1.
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>>Jaeweon.
>>>