Re: [STDS-802-16] Seeking Contributions regarding IMT-Advanced Requirements
On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Gal, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Roger,
>
> May I highlight a couple of points concerning dot16 contributions
> to "ITU-R WP 8F, regarding technical requirements for IMT-Advanced":
>
> 1. TG 802.16m will only have a consolidated draft Requirements
> Document (for the 16m project) by March 5, 2007 (see the Call for
> 16m SRD Contributions - IEEE 802.16m-07/004r1). A proper
> contribution to WP8f should be based on the 16m SRD, but, given the
> March 8 deadline, TGm will not be able to reach a consensus on the
> said 16m draft. How do you suggest we handle this timeline
> misalignment between dot16 and dot18?
Dan,
Personally, I think that the timeline for alignment within 802.16 is
pretty good.
An 802.16 document towards an 8F contribution on this topic should
reflect the technical requirements for P802.16m. However, the
documents won't be identical. For instance, I expect that some
details from the P802.16m document are going to be specific to that
project and not of interest to 8F. Also, the formatting and tone of
the two documents is going to be very different. Therefore, I think
we need to think about two very different documents, though we ought
to maintain consistency.
I think that the March 8 deadline for contributions on the 8F
proposal will give people time to draft some material, making use of
their own views of what should be in the contribution. They can, of
course, refine their views based on (a) the contributions due on Feb
23 in response to IEEE 802.16m-07/004r1; and (b) the output of the
TGm Requirements drafting group on March 5.
The 802.16 WG will have a chance to review both sets of material at
Session #48. We need to work out when we will get it to 802.18. As to
harmonization within 802.18, that's another matter.
> Note: the same concern applies to the Evaluation Criteria document.
> Note that TGm deadline for input contributions is March 5.
It will be possible to include ideas from that document in our draft
material towards an 8F contribution, though we will have less time
for harmonization.
> 2. My understanding is that the main challenge, facing ITU-R WP8f,
> would be to formulate MINIMUM technical requirements for IMT-
> Advanced technology proposals. Granted, IEEE 802 - in general, and
> Dot16 in particular - have a golden opportunity to influence these
> ITU-R minimum technical requirements, hence the importance of
> reaching a consensus within Dot16 on the air interface key minimum
> performance parameters that would be required for 16m.
I agree. I don't think that 802's expertise is relevant to the
entirety of 8F's requirements activity. However, on certain issues, I
believe that 8F would value 802's technical insights. For instance,
my presumption is that 8F would want to set minimum technical
requirements so as to be challenging but feasible. Here the views of
a technical body like 802 would be of value.
Also, I wouldn't consider an P802.16m requirements document to be
permanent, even if we reached a consensus in March. I believe that we
need to maintain a technical requirements document as a living
document that can change as times change. For example, it would be
appropriate to reconsider the P802.16m view of requirements once the
8F view becomes more clear,
> Your comments and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Best Regards,
> Dan Gal
> Alcatel-Lucent
Cheers,
Roger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 1:48 AM
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [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://
> wg.wirelessman.org>.
>
> Please observe a deadline of 8 March AOE.
>
> Contributions will be directed to the ITU-R Liaison Group for
> review and
> consideration.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> 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
>> the 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
>> WP8F?
>>
>> 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
>> yet 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
>> standards 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
>> stronger 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
>> was 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
>> beyond 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
>> that can be circulated with this report to the EC. The intent is to
>> help the 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
>> contribution 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
>> M.1645.
>>
>> http://ieee802.org/18/Meeting_documents/2007_Jan/
>> 18-06-0006-00-0000_IMT_Advanced_Opportunity.ppt
>>
>> http://ieee802.org/18/Meeting_documents/2007_Jan/R-REC-M.
>> 1645-0-200306-I!!MSW-E.doc
>>
>> Glad to discuss,
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> +1 972 684 7518 (ESN 444 7518) Voice
>> +1 972 684 3774 (ESN 444 3775) FAX
>> +1 972 814 4901 (ESN 450 9401) Mobile
>>
>>