284 Hart, Brian 22.2.2 77 1 TR User indexing is a) All MU parameters confusing, and in this table should be probably would length-4, indexed by benefit from the USER_INDEX. Discard concept of a null USER_NUM. user. For instance, Parameters for null user indices are users (0 STS) should USER_NUM is be reserved. another "index" NUM_USERS should (see P77L59) that be the sum of seems to run users. 1…NUM_USERS. Or, b) Rename (NUM_USERS != USER_INDEX to USER_NUM is an USER_SIGA_INDEX, error-prone and update the SIGA distinction) descriptions accordingly. Rename USER_NUM to USER_VECTOR_INDEX. Also, relate Nu to NUM_USERS, perhaps at Table 22-5 453 Hart, Brian 22.3.12.1 132 59 TR We are talking Pick a way of indexing about BFee i, and the users and stick this is equivalent with it to the (oddly named) USER_NUM in the TXVECTOR Proposed resolution: Accept in principle (284 was transferred to MU) Discussion: Although the commenter’s intent in CID 476 is unclear, the comment is used to make editorial changes that make the sentence more readable. The other comments relate to USER_INDEX etc. The current language is duplicative. The math uses u and Nu, the MAC/PHY interface uses USER_NUM, NUM_USERS and USER_INDEX. For example, given NSTS = [0 0 3 2] (Matlab notation), then Position or Unspecified: Unspecified: Unspecified: Unspecified: Notes: STA position could could could could reasonably be reasonably be reasonably be reasonably be 0 or 1 1 or 2 2 or 3 3 or 4 NSTSu (e.g.) 0 0 3 2 u - - 0 1 Nu = 2 USER_NUM - - 1 2 NUM_USERS=2 USER_INDEX - - 2 3 Relationships: u = find(NSTSu)-1 % Matlab code Nu = sum(NSTSu > 0) % Matlab code
284 Hart, Brian 22.2.2 77 1 TR User indexing is confusing, and probably would benefit from the concept of a null user. For instance, user indices are USER_NUM is another "index" (see P77L59) that seems to run 1…NUM_USERS. (NUM_USERS != USER_NUM is an error-prone distinction) a) All MU parameters in this table should be length-4, indexed by USER_INDEX. Discard USER_NUM. Parameters for null users (0 STS) should be reserved. NUM_USERS should be the sum of users. Or, b) Rename USER_INDEX to USER_SIGA_INDEX, and update the SIGA descriptions accordingly. Rename USER_NUM to USER_VECTOR_INDEX. Also, relate Nu to NUM_USERS, perhaps at Table 22-5 453 Hart, Brian 22.3.12.1 132 59 TR We are talking about BFee i, and this is equivalent to the (oddly named) USER_NUM in the TXVECTOR Pick a way of indexing the users and stick with it Proposed resolution: Accept in principle (284 was transferred to MU) Discussion: Although the commenter’s intent in CID 476 is unclear, the comment is used to make editorial changes that make the sentence more readable. The other comments relate to USER_INDEX etc. The current language is duplicative. The math uses u and Nu, the MAC/PHY interface uses USER_NUM, NUM_USERS and USER_INDEX. For example, given NSTS = [0 0 3 2] (Matlab notation), then Position or STA position Unspecified: could reasonably be 0 or 1 Unspecified: could reasonably be 1 or 2 Unspecified: could reasonably be 2 or 3 Unspecified: could reasonably be 3 or 4 Notes: NSTSu (e.g.) 0 0 3 2 u - - 0 1 Nu = 2 USER_NUM - - 1 2 NUM_USERS=2 USER_INDEX - - 2 3 Relationships: u = find(NSTSu)-1 % Matlab code Nu = sum(NSTSu > 0) % Matlab code
11-11-0511-03-00ac-d01-comment-resolution-brianh-part-3.docx