| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Youngsoo, Thank you for your notice
and comment. I will bring this
issue again tonight. If MC Adhoc reaches consensus on another value than 3bit, we may request to
revisit this comment at the main session. Best regards, Jaeweon From: Youngsoo Yuk
[mailto:youngsoo.yuk@lge.com] Dear Jaewon and all, Thank you for your
effort to improve the std for MC. I’m sorry not to be there to help
you. About the today’s result on MC comment
resolution(#342,343), I’ve submitted my reply
comments on the server. Unfortunately they
didn’t included in
commentary file, and my some concerns might not be shown. About the number of
bits for physical carrier index, I think 3bit-long is
too short to include all possible combinations. 3bit means 8 carrier
types can be deployed. Practically ABS may not
have such many carriers I agree. But, the number of the physical carrier is not
the number of the carriers in an ABS. It means all possible
carrier type in a network. For example, if an
network has three types of ABSs in the same frequency band, - 10 + 10 aggregated (AAI + Mixed) – PCI 0, PCI 1 (Down Town) - 2x 10 (mixed) - PCI 2, PCI 3
(Urban) - 10 (mixed) - PCI 2 or PCI 3 (sub-urban or
rural) Because the
configurations are different, 4 different physical carrier indices(PCI) are
required. If the operator has
two bands (2.3GHz and 2.5 GHz and 20MHz each), and same three types of ABSs
exist, 8 PCI should be assigned. If the operator has
another band at FDD band è we should add
more PCI and How can we do with 3 bit? We can also consider
the following case - Some operator doesn’t have frequency band at a rural
area can lease a carrier from different operator in a different band. - 40MHz with 4x10 with different MCIs. If 6 bit is not a
severe overhead, I hope to keep the number of bits as 6 bits. I just hope you can
have a time to think about it. Thank you for reading
this. BR Youngsoo From: Jaeweon Cho
[mailto:jaeweon.cho@samsung.com] Dear All, I have uploaded today outcome of
Multicarrier Adhoc discussion to the temp folder on the server. We quickly went though all MC comments including
the control message related comments, and agreed on the recommended resolutions
for 23 comments (These are marked with ‘X’). We also agreed that the Multicarrier Adhoc
will cover the following 3 comments: #345, #012 (AAI
PHY), #657 (MAC control message; general MAC) In addition, the comment #450 shall be
discussion under the area of L-MAC (HARQ). Ron, please take this comment. We will resume discussion tomorrow 7pm. Thanks and Best regards, Jaeweon Jaeweon
Cho, Ph.D. Samsung
Electronics, Korea Office)
+82-31-279-5796 |