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

[802.19] FW: IEEE 802.15 LB59 TG4g Comment Resolutions

802.19 Members,

 

                The following is a list of comment resolutions on the 802.15.4g ballot regarding the 802.19 comments on the CA document.

 

                They will be starting a recirculation soon. We should consider these comment resolutions during that ballot.

 

Steve

 

From: Phil Beecher [mailto:phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:09 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve
Cc: Phil Beecher; Monique Brown; Kuor-Hsin Chang; Hiroshi Harada; Stephen Pope; Clint Powell
Subject: IEEE 802.15 LB59 TG4g Comment Resolutions

 

Dear Steve and 802.19 WG participants,


The IEEE802.15 Working Group will shortly begin a recirculation ballot for the 802.15 TG4g draft.  TG4g addressed your comments received during LB59 Letter Ballot.  The comment resolutions to LB59 are in document 15-10-0852-16-004g-lb59-comments.xls

I have included your comments, and the resolutions from TG4g at the end of this email.  I hope these resolutions are acceptable to you, and that you can now approve the revised draft.  Unfortunately, for some comments, the group failed to reach consensus for a resolution. 

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,
Phil Beecher
IEEE 802.15 TG4g Chair
pbeecher@xxxxxxxx
Skype: pebeecher

#

Name

Affiliation

Category

Clause

Sub-clause

Page

Line #

Comment

Proposed Change

Proposed Resolution

A / AP / R / Z

Resolution
Accept Date

Group

Must Be Satisfied?    (if so enter Yes)

 

1

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

Several

Document is incomplete.   The authors appear to admit as much as the incomplete sections are highlighted in red.

Fill in remaining detail

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

2

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

14-26

While simulation assumptions and results are critical to evaluating coexistence capability, what is even more important are the Task Group's own conclusions based on these.   What do these say about coexistence of devices built to the proposed standard with the other sytems considered?

Include coexistence discussion

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

3

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

2.1

First paragraph states "a PHY specification", while the third paragraph states "specifies a total of three PHYs"

Change "a PHY specification" to "multiple PHY specifications"

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

4

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

2.1

Table 1; last row for 922 MHz (Korea), but nothing is marked

Either delete row or mark which new PHY is to be used.  

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

5

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

2.1

Table 1; next to last row for 470 - 510 MHz (China), has two PHYs marked, but the text just before the Table states that only one PHY is used in the band.

Either delete one of the two X's leaving one in that row, or change the text to remove this restriction.

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

6

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

2.3.1

Second paragraph; what is a "normal device"?  Terms referring to devices included prior to this are FFD, RFD, and coordinator.

Is a normal device an FFD, RFD, coordinator, or not FFD, not RFD, not coordinator.  Change to one of these terms or define what a normal device is.

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

7

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

2.3.3.1

The use of "will" indicates certainty, however  it is not certain that a PAN coordinator will avoid colliding with the existing network by switching to another channel, if no other channel exists to switch to.

Replace will with may

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

8

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

2.3.4

Third sentence: is missing information or is written incorrectly.  "At least ___ of the following …"  usually wants a number.  

fill in missing value of one

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

9

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

2.3.6

Is there missing text indicated by the placeholder, or does this have no impact on the CA?

Either fill in or delete clause

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

10

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

2.3.7

Does the coordinator seize or cease?

Replace seize with cease

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

11

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

2.3.8

Second paragraph; one of the other 802 systems that supports GTS.  I know of no other 802 systems that support GTS as defined by 802.15.4

Replace 802 systems by 802.15.4g systems

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

12

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

2.3.10

Is there missing text indicated by the placeholder, or does this have no impact on the CA?

Either fill in or delete clause

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

13

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

4.1.1

What is the meaning of this sentence.  I think that the problem is "from the each"

Delete the

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

14

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

4.1.2

Reference to Table 8, but it does not exist.  There is a table numbered 8, but it really is Table nine.

Add missing Table 8

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

15

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

4.3.1.1

Table 8 Major Parameters of Systems in the 2.400-2483.5 MHz band should be table 9

Change table numbering from 8 to 9 to match reference in text

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

16

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

4.3.1.2

Reference to Figure 2, should be figure 3

Change figure 2 to figure 3 in text

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

17

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

4.3.2.1

Reference to Figure 3, should be figure 4

Change figure 3 to figure 4 in text

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

18

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

4.3.2.4

There is no list of interferers shown in the figure as in previous sections when various 802.x were interfering with 802.15.4x

Delete the last sentence.

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y

19

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

4.4

Missing table number label

Add missing Table number

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

20

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

4.5

Missing table number label

Add missing Table number

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

21

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

4.6

Missing table number label

Add missing Table number

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

22

IEEE 802.19 WG

E

CA

4.7

Missing table number label

Add missing Table number

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

N

23

IEEE 802.19 WG

T

CA

Where is the study for the periodic CSM beacon?  Would this not affect coexistence?

Add missing study

Accept in Principle.
Resolved as indicated in doc. 15-10-0668-03-004g. 

AP

11/8/10

CA

Y