CID Commenter Clause Page/Line Comment Proposed Resolution Change Ron Porat 27.12 309.00 The text is not Make it more Revised explict which explicit and Editor: Please PPE threshold clear. make the changes values to use shown in for RU 106 + document DCM. There are two interpretations: 1) 0, because RU106 falls outside the RU set that has PPE threshold values defined. 2) The PPE threshold values belonging to RU 242, due to the 'b+1' formula. The text needs to clarify this. 13401 Ron Porat 9.4.2.237.5 149.10 Packet change in the Revised. extension column 'RU Editor: Please should be allocation size' make the changes enabled for of table 9-262ad shown in RU<242 in the number 242 document order to to 'less than or harmonize the equal to 242' design with RU>=242 and limit power consumption 11898 Hongyuan 9.4.2.237.5 147.65 In Table Add a note Revised. Zhang (RU saying "No PE Editor: Please Allocation is required for make the changes Index), RUs RUs smaller shown in that are than 242 document smaller than subcarriers". RU242 is not present, this means that PE shall always be 0 for these smaller RUs? Ron Porat 9.4.2.237.5 148.64 Previously, Change RUm to Accepted. variable 'm' RUb Editor: Please was used as make the changes max index of in D2.2 153.33 RU allocation index 'b' ;
CID Commenter Clause Page/Line Comment Proposed Change Resolution Ron Porat 27.12 309.00 The text is not explict which PPE threshold values to use for RU 106 + DCM. There are two interpretations: 1) 0, because RU106 falls outside the RU set that has PPE threshold values defined. 2) The PPE threshold values belonging to RU 242, due to the 'b+1' formula. The text needs to clarify this. Make it more explicit and clear. Revised Editor: Please make the changes shown in document 13401 Ron Porat 9.4.2.237.5 149.10 Packet extension should be enabled for RU<242 in order to harmonize the design with RU>=242 and limit power consumption change in the column 'RU allocation size' of table 9-262ad the number 242 to 'less than or equal to 242' Revised. Editor: Please make the changes shown in document 11898 Hongyuan Zhang 9.4.2.237.5 147.65 In Table (RU Allocation Index), RUs that are smaller than RU242 is not present, this means that PE shall always be 0 for these smaller RUs? Add a note saying "No PE is required for RUs smaller than 242 subcarriers". Revised. Editor: Please make the changes shown in document Ron Porat 9.4.2.237.5 148.64 Previously, variable 'm' was used as max index of RU allocation index 'b' ; Change RUm to RUb Accepted. Editor: Please make the changes in D2.2 153.33