Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel1

Link Quality Strawpole

Joe Kwak/Brian Johnson

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel2

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Purpose TGk has several different proposals for

new Link Quality Indicator. TGk members have widely varying

opinions on each proposal. Progress may be accelerated with

better understanding of group opinions. This series of strawpole questions is

designed to provide direction to contributors to continue this work.

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel3

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #1 Does TGk need a QUANTITATIVE link

quality indicator?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel4

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #2 Is a “black box” specification

preferred over a detailed functional, “how-to” specification which mandates a certain implementation?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel5

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #3 If TGk decides to specify HOW to

implement a quality indicator, is EVM the best basis for an implementation spec?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel6

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #4 Is a tabular performance specification

(specifying indicator performance at limited number of points) adequate?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel7

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #5 Should the link quality indicator

accurately reflect output quality in both AWGN and fading conditions (using variance adjustment or equivalent)?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel8

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #6 Would members support a link quality

measurement based on OFDM pilot tones?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel9

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #7 Would members support, as mandatory,

any signal quality spec that will likely require a silicon revision to claim 11k compliance?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel10

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #8 Would members support, as optional,

a signal quality spec that will likely require a silicon revision to claim 11k compliance?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel11

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Link Quality Question #9 Would members support reserving and

defining the required bit fields for a future signal quality measurement that could be defined as mandatory in TGn?

YES _______ NO _______ ABSTAIN _______

Submission Kwak/Johnson, InterDigital/Nortel12

doc: IEEE 802.11-03/970r0November 2003

Other Key Questions? Are there other similar questions

which we should poll to better determine direction for this work??