parser of Clause 22 (g) (simply distribute the coded bits among two channels) is optimum for TVWS channels (significant SINR variations over multi-TVWS channels)? Simply splitting the coded bits between two channels can be viewed as a special case of an interleaver and is therefore worse than an optimized interleaver structure regardless of the SINR variation. The interleaver choice was also simulated with unequal SINR (see contribution 839). 592 Similar comment to the previous comment, using the same concept of segment parser of Cluase 22 (f) (simply distribute the coded bits among two channels) is optimum for TVWS channels (significant SINR variations over channels)? Inconsistence with later statement. Rejected. See resolution for comment 591 593 23.3.5 Due to regulations and/or realtime channel usage siutations, the conditions of available TV channels could be quite different from each other. Need to optionally specify independent MCS value for each available TV channel, if multiple TV channels are to be used. Need to specify an option to permit use of independent MCS value for each available TV channel, if multiple TV channels are to be used. Rejected. See multiple MCS discussion. 594 23.3.5 Can the common MCS applied to the multiple TVWS channels where SINR values are highly fluctuated? Common MCS applied to the multiple TVWS channels could degrade the performance of TVWS network, where channel conditions are widely varied. Rejected. See multiple MCS discussion. 595 23.3.5 For aggregated channels, It is better to allow unequal MCS. Unequal MCS is more efficient when conditions varies from channel to channel. Insert 'Unequal MCSs could be applied to streams assigned to non-contiguous channels'. Rejected. See multiple MCS discussion. 596 23.3.5 Use separate interleaving and coding on different frequency segments. This will allow the easy use of different Allow separate per frequency segment. Rejected. See multiple MCS discussion.
MCS on different frequency segments. 585 23.2.2 The modifications to Table 22-1 is not sufficient to optimize the performance in TVWS: e.g, 1)SNR (when FORMAT is VHT) is a measure of the received SNR per spatial stream cannot be simply reused in the multi-channel case. In TVWS operation, SNR values of the multi-channels could be significantly different; 2) TXPWR_LEVEL: a single tx power level is not sufficient in case, especially when one aggregated channel is adajacent to the DTV occupied channel. TXPWR_LEVEL should be modified; 3) Single MCS is not sufficient in case, where SNR values are highly fluctuated. More modifications of Table 22-1 (TXVECTOR and RXVECTOR) are required to optimize the TVWS operation. Rejected. See multiple MCS discussion. 759 23.3.3 Unlike in 802.11ac, unequal power transmission should be specified in 802.11af for cases where more than one frequency segment is used. For example, if one of the aggregated channels has a limitation of 40 mW (adjacent channel) and another channel has a limit of 100 mW, 802.11af should allow transmission of unequal power levels Insert a multiplicative factor on each frequency segment prior to D/A to reflect difference in transmitted power. Alternatively, insert different TxPwrLevels for each channel/frequency segment in the TXVector Rejected. 11ac operates in several different band where power limits vary much more than 40mW vs. 100mW. The has been discussed in 11ac and the decision should uphold in 11af as well 761 23.3.5 Use separate interleaving and coding on different frequency segments. Allow separate per frequency segment. Rejected. Using one interleaver for both frequency segments is superior to maximize diversity out of narrow 5MHz channels 460 23.3.5 Use separate interleaving and coding on different add proper text to Allow separate Rejected.
frequency segments. This will allow the easy use of different MCS on different frequency segments. per frequency segment. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 842 23.3.5 Allow for separate interleaving and coding on different frequency segments. This will enable the use of different MCS on different frequency segments. Allow separate per frequency segment. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 606 Design a single interleaver across frequency segments that will allow different modulation levels for each frequency segment. This will keep the code-rate the same, but change the signal constellation. Interleaver needs to be redesigned. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 735 Design a single interleaver across frequency segments that will allow different modulation levels for each frequency segment. This will keep the code-rate the same, but change the signal constellation. Interleaver needs to be redesigned. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 736 23.6.4.4 Table 23-31: Single TXPWR_LEVEL and single MCS may not be sufficient for TVWS operation. Multiple power and multiple MCS's for TVWS channel should be supported FCC rules define depending on the combination of gelocation and channel location, the TX power could be varied from one channel to the other channel. Single TxPOW Level would not be sufficient. Single MCS would not be good for the case where SINRs are highly fluctuated. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS and power levels at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 846 Design a single interleaver across frequency segments that will allow for different modulation levels for each frequency segment. This will allow the code-rate the same, Redesign the interleaver to allow for different signal constellations for different frequency segments. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion.
732 23.3.5 For aggregated channels, we need to add an option for independent MCS per channel, as described in Unequal MCS is more efficient when conditions varies from channel to channel. Insert 'Unequal MCSs could be applied to streams assigned to non-contiguous channels'. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 841 23.3.5 As channel conditions in aggregated channels will typically vary is seems overly restrictive to not unequal MCS in aggregated channels. Unequal MCS should allow for more efficient channel use and higher throughput, if allowed. Insert 'Unequal MCSs may be applied to streams assigned to non-contiguous channels'. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 607 23.6.4.4 Table 23-31: Single TXPWR_LEVEL and single MCS may not be sufficient for TVWS operation. Multiple power and multiple MCS's for TVWS channel should be supported FCC rules define depending on the combination of gelocation and channel location, the TX power could be varied from one channel to the other channel. Single TxPOW Level would not be sufficient. Single MCS would not be good for the case where SINRs are highly fluctuated. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS and multiple levels at this point. See multiple MCS discussion. 856 23.6.4.4 FCC rules define the TX power depending on the combination of geolocation and channel location, in addition the TX power can vary depending on the specific frequency channel. A single TxPOW Level is not sufficient to allow for this variation. Also a single MCS applied to multiple aggregated channels does not allow for optimal throughput performance for the case where the SINRs Table 23-31 should support Multiple TxPOWs and multiple MCSs for aggregated TVWS channels. Rejected. We don’t see the need/benefit for multiple MCS at this point. See multiple MCS discussion.