| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Wookbong, Ramon and all, The reason we split the vote on the
resolution for comment #8 and noted the results was because the comments on
test scenarios were not mutually exclusive and we were trying to address
multiple comments with a single resolution. The first part of the asopted resolultion
in comment #8 addressed the FDD issue, the NGMN configuration and the choice of
mandatory/optional scenarios. The second part did not conflict with the
decision in part 1. It simply addressed different comments on the parameters of
the urban macrocell model and cleaned up TBDs by adding the mobility mix. I don’t believe the comment and the
resolution in 120L are conflicting with the resolution in #8. The
additional text that was adopted provides clarification as to what is expected when
simulating the baseline configuration. Since comment #120L does not cover
part 2 of comment #8, my understanding was that we could not supercede comment
#8 by #120L. Please feel free to correct my
interpretation if you see things differently. Thanks. Best Regards, Roshni From: Ramon Khalona
[mailto:rkhalona@NEXTWAVE.COM] Hi Wookbong and all, My reading of these resolutions is that
they are not contradictory because the first comment simply adds the mobility
mix to the urban macro-cell model and the second comment adds the qualification
that the urban macro-cell scenario is optional and that the baseline model in
Section 3.2.9 is mandatory. If I recall correctly, the vote on the second
comment was close (36 to 31 or something like that). My problem with the
second resolution is that the urban macro-cell model is very important and more
representative of urban
environments where systems may be deployed. Furthermore, having two
models as mandatory (even though we may give the baseline scenario in 3.2.9
precedence for performance comparison purposes, especially with other
technologies) can only be helpful to us. Ramon Khalona NextWave Broadband From: Wookbong Lee
[mailto:wbong@LGE.COM] Hi
Brian and Roshini, I
have a question for resolved comments, comment #8 and comment #120 in 80216m-07_041r3.cmt.
(Both are accept-modified.) In
comment #8, the second part of resolution is Part 2: Leave Urban macrocell site-to-site distance, channel
model and propagation model unchanged. Mobility mix is 3 km/hr – 60%, 30
km/hr – 30%, 120 km/hr – 10%. 19 in favor 9 against And
in comment #120L, the resolution of this comment is Adopt the baseline configuration as the only mandatory test
scenario. Replace the following text "For purposes of FDD system
evaluation, a TBD test scenario shall be used. Proponents are required to
present performance results for both mandatory test scenarios defined in Table
3." By " Case 1: Baseline Configuration, uncorrelated antennas at both BS
and MS Case 2: Baseline Configuration, uncorrelated antennas at MS,
correlated antennas at BS (Section 3.2.9)" Change Urban macrocell model to Optional. Mark section 3.2.9 as mandatory. I think these two comment
resolutions are contradictory, since the first one clearly says “leave
Urban macrocell”, which is Mandatory
for Urban macrocell, and the second one says “change Urban macrocell model to Optional”.
The first one (comment
#8) resolved first, and the other (comment #120) was submitted and resolved the
day after the first one resolved. After the first comment
resolved, I think that the TG should resolve the late comments as
"superceded" or make a motion as "re-open the first
comment". I am confused
what the final resolution of these two comments is. Best Regards, Wookbong Lee |