1 / 23

Clause 17 Comment Resolution

Clause 17 Comment Resolution. Authors:. Date: 2009-01-20. Abstract. This document discusses resolution of comments in Clause 17 for TGp Draft 5.0. Comment IDs 168-172. CIDs 168-170 From Master Spreadsheet. Comment 168 and 170. Comments 168 and 170 (John Kenney)

chandra-vaikunth
Download Presentation

Clause 17 Comment Resolution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Clause 17 Comment Resolution Authors: Date: 2009-01-20 Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  2. Abstract This document discusses resolution of comments in Clause 17 for TGp Draft 5.0. Comment IDs 168-172 Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  3. CIDs 168-170 From Master Spreadsheet Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  4. Comment 168 and 170 • Comments 168 and 170 (John Kenney) • Change "The interfering signal" to "During a test, the interfering signal.” • Modification is to text cut and pasted from 802.11-2007; not modified by TGp • This part of the standard describes what ACR and AACR is (pure definition). • Recommend decline or forward to TGm (802.11 maintenance) Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  5. Motion Placeholder • Reject comment or: • Instruct editor to Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  6. Comment 169 • Add grades 1 (-40 to 125 deg C) and 2 (-40 to 105 deg C) from AEC-Q100 to the clause and the PICS and make them optional. • AEC is Automotive Electronics Council • AEC formed to create sufficient “buying power” to be able to get ICs and passive electronic components for automotive use at reasonable price • AEC concerned with testing electronic parts for early life failure rate and stress test qualification • Original temperature range added by TGp taken from SAE recommendation for passenger compartment electronics Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  7. AEC Temperature Grades Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  8. TG Consensus? • TGp added “most passenger compartment” electronics commensurate with DVD players, navigation units etc (AEC grade 3) from SAE recommendations for electronics of this nature (internet access electronics for passenger compartment). • Initially met with some resistance from WG-issue is cost and testing requirements and justifying need for better than SAE equivalent of AEC grade 3 • Does TG want to add additional grades to TGp or let AEC (or SAE) drive any requirements more stringent than grade 3 under the general requirements for any automotive electronics? • Grade 0-1 is typical of engine sensor, exhaust sensor (under hood) • Grade 2 is specifically for hot spots within passenger compartment • Grade 3 is already in TGp • What is desire of TG? Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  9. Motion Placeholder Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  10. CIDs 171-172 on ACR Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  11. Spectrum Mask Data from D 5.0 Annex I Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  12. Spectral Mask Diagram from TGp D5.0 Annex I Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  13. Background on Construction of Table 17-13 • Receiver and alternate adjacent channel interferer are calculated at +/- F5 in previous diagram • 10 dB extra protection provided by Mask C • Commenters agree with enhanced AACR numbers • Receiver and adjacent channel interferer calculation uses average of f3 and f4 in diagram • ACR values in base standard are average of two values • Mask C would provide additional 12 dB protection over Mask A for ACR, 10 dB additional protection for AACR Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  14. Compare Class A to Class C at 5.5-10 MHz Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  15. Table 17-13a from TGp Draft 5.0 Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  16. Table 17-13 from Base Standard Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  17. ACR Values • Quick method to calculate table 17-13 values: • Desired signal 3 db above rcv. sensitivity level • Implementation margin is 5dB • (rcv sens–imp. margin) – (rcv sens+3 dB) + value of mask = ACR • Value of mask = average of values at 5.5 and 10 MHz offsets • Example at BPSK=1/2 from table 17-13 • (-85-5) – (-85+3) + (20+28)/2 = 16 dB • For ACR with Mask C, difference is value of mask = (32+40)/2=36 dB which is 12 better than Mask A • Table 17-13a entry for ACR at BPSK rate ½ for 10 MHz BW and Mask C interferer should be • (-85-5)-(-85+3)-(32+40)/2=28 • To maintain consistency with base standard calculation methods, the optional enhanced ACR values should be 12 better than the values in table 17-13. Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  18. Summary • Commenters are correct that the enhanced ACR values are too stringent if interferer has Mask C. • However, their recommended values are based on the mask value of 15 Mhz from CF which is correct for the AACR values, but not the ACR values • The ACR values use the average of the 5.5 MHz and 10 MHz break points • The values in table 17-13 verify this method • Recommend counter on the comment: • Accept comment that the current values are incorrect, but that the commenter’s suggested values use the mask value for AACR, not ACR • Replace existing values with correct values consistent with the calculation method in table 17-13 but replacing Mask A with Mask C for interferer (average of values at 5.5 and 10 MHz break points) for the optional enhanced ACR values in Table 17-13a Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  19. Motion • Move that the editor replace the ACR values in Table 17-13a in Draft 5.0 with the following: • BPSK ½; 28 dB • BPSK ¾ ; 27 dB • QPSK ½; 25 dB • QPSK ¾; 23 dB • 16-QAM ½; 20 dB • 16-QAM ¾; 16 dB • 64-QAM 2/3; 12 dB • 64-QAM ¾; 11 dB • Move • Second • For • Against • Abstain Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  20. CID 173 Concerning Term “WAVE” Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  21. Use of term WAVE in amendment • Table 17-13a—WAVE enhanced receiver performance requirements • Adrian recommends deleting term WAVE from title of table • If term is gone, accept comment • Term did appear in title, acronym list, and in MIB variable in Draft 5.0 Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  22. Motion • Move to instruct editor to remove term “WAVE” from title of table 17-13a • Table 17-13a—enhanced receiver performance requirements ….? • Suggestions on wording are welcome Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

  23. References Carl Kain, USDOT/Noblis

More Related