Re: stds-802-16-tg2: Re: Comment 132

["Barry Lewis" <radcom25@dircon.co.uk>]

Roger, Muya,
OK, I can submit the text supplied from Remi as an editorial comment into
the second letter ballot.
Following review at TM4 this week I have 3 further editorial comments from
the TM4 working group. Is it procedurally OK for me to also supply these as
editorials for the second letter ballot?

Regards

Barry Lewis




-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
To: Muya Wachira <muya@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: stds-802-16-tg2@ieee.org <stds-802-16-tg2@ieee.org>
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:38 PM
Subject: stds-802-16-tg2: Re: Comment 132


>>Comment 132 had been rejected and a note said "Awaiting input". The
>>input was received from Remi, but has not been checked by Barry who
>>was responsible for the comment (but he is in France at a meeting).
>>
>>I have just now inserted that new section in the comment resolution.
>>I think we should include it so that the original commenter can see
>>it (even in draft form pending review by Barry).
>>
>>Muya
>
>
>Muya,
>
>Sorry I overlooked this email from you before I started the ballot.
>
>This will have to be submitted in Letter Ballot #2. Anyway, that
>makes more sense, since it should come in as a comment, not as a
>resolution to a comment.
>
>Roger
>------------------------------------------
>
>"Complete section as ""D.3 Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC)
>""with text as follows: ""The Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC)
>has also conducted technical studies dealing operator-to-operator
>coordination issues. A paper was issued as an input to the Industry
>Canada regulation.
>
>This paper entitled  "RABC Pub. 99.2: RABC Study Leading to a
>Coordination Process for Systems in the 24, 28 and 38 GHz Bands
>recommends a coordination process using the distance as first trigger
>and two spectral pfd levels that trigger different actions by the
>operators.
>
>If the boundary of two service areas is within 60 km of each other,
>then the co-ordination process is invoked. Two spectral pfd levels
>are proposed for co-ordination. The first one, level 'A', represents
>a minimal interference scenario where either licensed operator does
>not require co-ordination. A second level, 'B', typically 20 dB
>higher than 'A', represents a trigger for two possible categories: if
>the interference is above A but below B, then co-ordination is
>required with existing systems only. If the interference is greater
>than level B, then co-ordination is required for both existing and
>planned systems. The table below summarises spectral pfd levels A and
>B for the three frequency bands.
>
>Table D.2 - Proposed spectral pfd levels in the 24, 28 and 38 GHz bands
>Frequency Band (GHz) spectral pfd Level A(dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz)
>spectral pfd Level B(dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz)
>24 -114 -94
>28 -114 -94
>38 -125 -105
>
>
>The much lower spectral pfd levels at 38 GHz are to ensure protection
>to point-to-point systems allowed in this band in Canada. The
>coordination procedure is summarized in the Figure D-1 - Coordination
>Process Recommended in RABC paper.(Figure to be inserted)
>
>The paper can be found at
>http://www.rabc.ottawa.on.ca/english/pubs.cfm and shows how the
>values were derived.
>"