[STDS-802-16] Seeking Contributions regarding IMT-Advanced Requirements
Per the note below, which I distributed on Jan 22, the IEEE 802.18
TAG is seeking to coordinate content that can be contributed to ITU-R
WP 8F regarding technical requirements for IMT-Advanced. Note the
suggestion that "having the work itself done in the interested WGs
and brought to 802.18 for harmonization/consolidation, seems to be
the best method."
With this in mind, it is appropriate for the 802.16 Working Group to
develop appropriate content.
I would like to request that material on this topic be developed and
submitted as Working Group contributions. The document number format
should be C802.16-07/XYZ. Contributions should be uploaded to <http://
Please observe a deadline of 8 March AOE.
Contributions will be directed to the ITU-R Liaison Group for review
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Michael Lynch <mjlynch@NORTEL.COM>
> Date: January 23, 2007 12:22:02 AM CEST
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Summary of IEEE 802.18 IMT Requirements Meeting -
> 16 January
> At the November closing plenary you asked that 802.18 host a
> meeting to
> determine IEEE 802 interest in a joint 802 response to ITU-R on IMT
> Advanced requirements. It also seemed possible that there may be an
> interest within 802 to provide other material to ITU-R WP8F, the WP
> responsible for IMT. I sent an email announcement of the meeting to
> EC on 11 December and a reminder in January.
> The meeting convened the evening of 16 January during the London Joint
> Interim 802. The agenda was as previously announced:
> 1) Does IEEE 802 want to submit an input on IMT requirements to ITU-R
> 2) If the answer to 1) is yes then what we will we submit? E.g. a
> harmonized view or simply a list of requirements? Or something else?
> 3) How should the work be done? Should it be done in the various
> WGs and
> then presented in 802.18 for harmonization/consolidation?
> There were 19 in attendance when the meeting opened. Unfortunately not
> all IEEE 802 WGs were represented.
> It should be noted that requirements for IMT Advanced (4G) have not
> been enumerated in the ITU-R. ITU-R Recommendation M.1645 shows the
> envisioned future network beyond IMT-2000 (3G). M.1645 itself was
> adopted by the Radiocommunication Assembly (RA) in June, 2003.
> There is
> a link provided here to M.1645.
> After the initial discussions the chair asked the representatives from
> 802.16 if they could present an overview of M.1645. They proceeded to
> provide a very useful presentation which in turn generated more
> questions from the meeting.
> There was an understanding of what requirements IEEE 802 could submit
> based on the various standards it has, or is, developing. It was
> mentioned that this is an opportunity that could spur further
> development (or modification). It was also noted that when
> submitting a
> requirement the supporting standard did not yet need to exist.
> The general view was that an IEEE 802 submission would be much
> than one representing an individual WG.
> There was discussion on does IEEE 802 want to submit an input on IMT
> requirements to ITU-R WP8F. The tone was positive, and a straw poll
> taken. The vote was 10 Yes, 0 No, 2 Abstain.
> There was concern expressed that there could be delays in developing a
> joint input should one WG be ready now and others are not.
> There were questions from the Chair about an official ITU-R
> timeline for
> developing IMT requirements. Some noted that Figure 6, "Phases and
> expected timelines for future development of IMT-2000 and systems
> IMT-2000", in M.1645 provides the timeline for submission of
> requirements. The information in that figure was given as the reason
> that IEEE 802 needs to approve at the March plenary a requirements
> submission to WP8F's May, 2007 meeting. Due to the 2007 RA and World
> Radiocommunication Conference the May meeting is the last meeting of
> WP8F for 2007. At the time of this meeting in London there does not
> appear to be an official WP8F work program or timeline available.
> It is
> possible that WP8F, which was meeting in Cameroon in parallel, may
> develop such a timeline. It was clear that the timing of an input
> on IMT
> requirements is not agreed.
> The chair requested that the 802.16 representatives develop charts
> can be circulated with this report to the EC. The intent is to help
> EC better understand the opportunity that IMT Advanced may present for
> IEEE 802. Changes as suggested by the 802.11 representative were later
> included. There is a link provided here to the slides.
> The proposed work method in agenda item 3, having the work itself done
> in the interested WGs and brought to 802.18 for
> harmonization/consolidation, seems to be the best method. This will
> require that all interested WGs proceed in a timely fashion. It would
> also allow for a review of a "completed" document by each contributing
> group. Since there may need to be voting during the
> harmonization/consolidation process each participating WG's
> should be presented by the WG chair, with necessary technical support.
> That also presumes that all participating WG chairs have voting rights
> in 802.18. At this time that is not universally the case.
> I propose that the WG chairs review this with their groups. The EC can
> further discuss either electronically or during the opening EC meeting
> in Orlando. At that time we need to confirm the work methods and
> identify those groups that will participate.
> The links here will lead to the charts that were developed (and
> presented in the 802.11 closing plenary), and to a reference copy of
> Glad to discuss,
> +1 972 684 7518 (ESN 444 7518) Voice
> +1 972 684 3774 (ESN 444 3775) FAX
> +1 972 814 4901 (ESN 450 9401) Mobile