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

RE: stds-80220-requirements: 4.1.9 Latency- ARQ loop delay



Dear Mr. Jin-Weon Chang,

 

Several folks have already pointed out the desired need of low ARQ loop times. Below I just wanted to provide a simple analysis of why I think 10 ms is not terribly constraining.

 

Consider A sends a data frame to B and B sends an ack frame back to A. Use your assumption that both data frame and ack frame are transmitted in a physical frame, whose duration is T.

 

At time instant 0, A has the data frame ready. A spends T0 to do the coding, interleaving, etc, so that A starts to transmit the physical frame at time instant t0+T0. Here T0 represents all the TX processing time. Thus, the transmission of the physical frame ends at T0+T.

 

Denote T1 the propagation delay from A to B. So B receives the physical frame in the time interval of [T0+T1, T0+T+T1]. B further spends T2 to do the deinterleaving, decoding, etc, so that B determines whether the physical frame is received correctly at time instant T0+T+T1+T2, where T2 represents all the RX processing time. Then B prepares an ack or nak, does the usual TX processing and sends the ack or nak in another physical frame. Similarly, A will do the usual signal reception, and RX processing. Therefore, A will know whether the feedback is ack or nak at time instant (T0+T+T1+T2)*2 (indeed the coding/decoding for ack/nak is much faster than that for the data frame. But here we assume the same).

 

Now let's look at the numbers. Assume that the physical frame is T=1.66 ms (the same as in HDR. This is just an example.) With 10 mile cell radius, T1=0.05ms. To meet the requirement of (T0+T+T1+T2)*2=10ms, T0+T2=3.3 ms, which I believe most of the current DSP/FPGA/ASIC can do it easily.

 

Hope the above analysis clarifies the points.

 

Thanks,

 

Junyi

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jin-Weon Chang [mailto:jwchang1@samsung.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:38 AM
To: Marianna Goldhammer; Li Junyi; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: 4.1.9 Latency- ARQ loop delay

 

Dear Mr. Junyi Li , Mis. Mariana Goldhammer, and other colleagues,

 

Let me clarify my estimation on ARQ loop delay.

 

I had no intention to make an exact evaluation of ARQ loop delay from the start

because it is highly dependent on many assumptions.

(I can not make an exact esitmation without a complete physical spec.^^)

 

The following is an explanation of my clumsy evaluation:

According to the ARQ loop delay definition in the current req. document,

it is

"the duration from when a data frame is received by the physical layer

of the transmitter to the time when an acknowledgeent for that frame is

received by the transmitting station."

That is, for instance, if we use interleaving technique on the transmitter side

the whole duration of a physical frame should be included into the TX time.

The TX time should include all processing times needed for physical operations

such as channel coding, rate matching, etc in addition to that for interleaving.

And then the real transmission of a physical frame can be made.

I think one frame time is the minimum for TX time if my understanding of

the definition is correct.

 

I would like to point out serveral additional assumtions.

1. Regaring processing time for acknowledgement on the RX side

    I did not count it for the whole 4 frame time of ARQ loop delay.

    I did ignore the processing time for deinterleaving that is quite long as you know.

2. I do not assume 'Multi-channel' HARQ scheme.

    If we use multi-channel HARQ scheme, the time for delivering ACK/NACK info

    requires serveral times of a frame depending on the number of channels.

    -> In the previous systems that use a short frame, they mostly use N-channel HARQ

        and the multi-channel delay should be additionally considered.

3. I assume ACK/NACK information is transffered in a physical frame.

 

As you know the 'ARQ loop delay' is highly dependent on physical designs

and a lot of physical parameters.

That is why I proposed to remove the limitation of 10 ms.

 

Best regards,

Jin

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:08 AM

Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 4.1.9 Latency- ARQ loop delay

 

Li,

 

1. Probably 3 frames will be needed for most of implementations

 

2. For systems targeting SDMA, the MAC frame will be longer than 3-4ms.

 

2. For VoIP, not necessarely one needs retransmissions, the codecs are tolerant to packet losses.

 

Regards,

 

Marianna

-----Original Message-----
From: Li Junyi [mailto:Junyi_Li@flarion.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:56 PM
To: Marianna Goldhammer; Jin-Weon Chang; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 4.1.9 Latency- ARQ loop delay

Jin,

 

I am a little puzzled by your estimation. Note that when a physical frame is transmitted, it is also received at the same time. Unless the receiver has to take the entire time duration of a physical frame to finish the decoding after the frame has been received, the ARQ loop delay seems to be dominated by the two TX physical frames, not four.

 

In addition, the use of small frame size is not uncommon in other technologies. For example, in HDR, the slot time is 1.66ms. Voice traffic often has delay constraint of 20 or 40 ms. Considering the scheduling jitter and retransmission requirement, 10 ms ARQ loop delay does not seem to be terribly small.

 

Regards,

 

Junyi

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:05 AM
To: Jin-Weon Chang; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 4.1.9 Latency- ARQ loop delay

 

Jin,

 

I agree with your comments.

 

In my understanding, video teleconf needs the lowest delay, I guess

 that 40-50ms for ARQ loop delay should be enough.

 

Regards,

 

Marianna

-----Original Message-----
From: Jin-Weon Chang [mailto:jwchang1@samsung.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:16 AM
To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: stds-80220-requirements: 4.1.9 Latency- ARQ loop delay

Dear colleagues,

 

In the section 4.1.8 Latency "ARQ loop delay" is required to be less than 10ms.

If I understand the ARQ loop delay correctly, it includes

- TX time of a physical frame,

- Propagation time over the air,

- RX time of a physical frame,

- Processing time for acknowledgement,

- TX time of a ACK/NACK frame,

- Propagation time over the air, and

- RX time of an ACK/NACK frame.

ARQ loop delay includes 4 times of physical frame

if we assume ACK/NACK information is transffered in a physical frame.

Limiting the delay within 10ms results in limiting the size of a physical frame

less than 2.5ms.

This requirement will highly restrict physical design of MBWA.

I think the size of a physical frame should be determined

considering not only delay factor but also many other factors.

 

Thus I would like to propose that 10ms requirement in ARQ loop delay be removed.

 

Best regards,

Jin

 



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.
************************************************************************************


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.
************************************************************************************