February 2007doc.: IEEE 802.22-05/0076r1
IEEE P802.22
Wireless RANs
Date: 2007-02-15
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Zander Zhongding Lei / Institute for Infocomm Research,Singapore / 21 Heng Mui Keng Terrace,Singapore 119613 / 65-6874-5686 / [email protected]
1.Attendance
Feb 1 / Feb 8 / Feb 15Changjoo Kim / x
Myungsun Song / x / x
Sunghyun Hwang / x / x / x
Gwangzin Ko / x
Jungsun Um / x / x / x
Soo-Young Chang / x / x / x
Edward Au / x / x
Wai Ho Mow / x / x
Zander Zhongding Lei / x / x / x
Ying-Chang Liang / x
Chang Long Xu / x
Ramon Khalona / x / x / x
Upkar Dhaliwal / x
Monisha Ghosh / x / x / x
Carlos Cordeiro / x
Eli Sofer / x / x
Steve Kuffner / x
David Mazzarese / x
Carl Stevenson / x
Chris Clanton / x / x
Gerald Chouinard / x / x / x
Einolf / x
2.Minutes from Feb 15 2007 Conference Call
3.1Agenda
Report from PN Sequence team
Review Gerald’s document on Dual vs. Single RX chains for sensing and normal operation
Discuss PHY specification of CBP raised by Carl
3.2Notes
3.2.1Report from PN Sequence team
Since Eli(Runcom) and Edward(Huawei) were absent from the call, there was no further update on the PN sequence. Monisha reiterated that PAPR should be considered for both Payload and Preamble. Bearing in mind high payload PAPR, little overall gain was expected of using CAZAC preamble sequences. Furthermore, the complexity introduced by CAZAC sequenceat receiver was also an issue. Geraldcommented that the preamble issues could be treated by a 3 level decision process:
-Decide on the number of PN sequence repetitions in the preamble symbol (2 or 3)
-Decide on the type of PN sequences (CAZAC or binary)
-Decide on which specific set of sequences and the number of orthogonal sequences needed.
Doc63r1 includes a discussion on this topic. The group were encouraged to look into it.
3.2.2Review Gerald’s document on Dual vs. Single RX chains for sensing and normal operation (Doc 62)
Gerald went through the document addressing two different WRAN CPE RF architectures: separate or common RF paths. The purpose was to ask the group to evaluate whether current PHY could support both architectures and any impact of the two architectures to current draft. Discussion focused on sensing time required (equivalently, number of frame period needed to do sensing in case of common RF paths) and whether off-channel sensing was supported. Ramon took an action item to summarize the discussion and feedback to Steve (sensing tiger team). It was also suggested that MAC team should look into it since the structures would impact, if any, more to MAC. Monishawould with Carlos on this.
3.2.3Discuss PHY specification of CBP raised by Carl
During last conference call,Carl Stevenson stressed the need for the PHY group to complete specification of the Coexistence Beacon Protocol (CBP). CBP could be used for communications between CPEs to mitigate mutual interference. The group agreed that CBP was not well defined in the current draft. Issues like how to sync CPEs with respect to CBP usage, what preambles/sequences to be used, and subcarriers allocation of CPEs taking consideration of 4W EIRP etc. need to be further discussed.
Before end of the call, action items arisen from Comments and Resolutions exercise in London were discussed briefly. Ramon promised to take a look at the relevant document (Doc 65) and bring back pending discussion items to the group.
3.Next Conference Call
The next conference call will be held at 6am PT, 22Feb. One of the items on the agenda is multi-cell scenario discussion for single PHY parameters.
Submission page 1 Zander Lei/I2R, Singapore