FW: [802SEC] Summary of IEEE 802.18 IMT Requirements Meeting - 16 January
Are there members of 802.19 that would like to have input (through
802.18) to the ITU on IMT-Advanced requirements?
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:22 PM
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
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.