Thank you for the
clarifications on 802.16-D and its future content. I respect what they (.16)
have accomplished thus far and the way they move up on the learning curve. I
also concur that the 802.20 minimum performance specifications are an essential
input for the Coexistence work, but believe that these
specifications must be created by the 802.20 group and be part of the .20
standard. I support a Coexistence PAR that would create a coexistence
guidelines and recommendation document, but would not include the minimum
performance standards.
Regards,
Dan
[Dan]
-----Original
Message----- From: Reza Arefi
[mailto:reza.arefi@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:10
AM To: 'Gal, Dan (Dan)'; '802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)' Subject:
RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Coexistence CG's next call this
Friday
Dan,
Thanks for your
message.
It is true that 802.20's
Coexistence Task Group (CTG) does not have to produce minimum equipment performance data. But it will certainly need
that information to run simulations necessary for making meaningful
recommendations and guidelines for coexistence. So, CTG either have to be
given the task of producing that data or be given that data produced by
whatever entity that will produce it.
As for 802.16-REVd, it will be a
combination of 802.16 (above 10 GHz), 802.16a (2-10 GHz), and 802.16c (system
profiles for >10 GHz). The first two certainly do not include minimum
performance data. The system profiles document is supposed to have the minimum
performance data but leaves such things as spectral mask and spurious
emissions to "local regulation" and doesn't specify any number. So, none of
these include what you can find in section 5.5 of 802.16.2-REVa (the
coexistence document) which applies to >10 GHz PMP systems (the 2-11 GHz
part does not include such section on Equipment Design
Parameters). So, while I think 802.16 does not provide a good model
for handling minimum performance requirements, I certainly believe that CTG
needs those requirements to produce meaningful
results.
Bottom line, I think the CTG,
once formed, should decide on whether they want to take the burden of
producing minimum performance data or just ask for it to be provided to them
by the rest of the WG, and reflect this in the PAR they will
write.
Regards,
Reza
-----Original Message----- From:
owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Gal, Dan (Dan) Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:58
PM To: 'reza.arefi@ieee.org'; 802. 20 Coex CG
(E-mail) Subject: RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Coexistence CG's
next call this Friday
Reza,
To reiterate --
my view is that the minimum performance standard must be part of
the IEEE 802.20 PHY standard. The Coexistence issues and recommendations
belong in a separate document (for which you need a new PAR).
FYI, I was
informed (but not yet confirmed) that the IEEE 802.16 group intends
to publish version 802.16d next year and include all minimum
performance standards in that version. I am not sure what the fate
of 802.16.2 will be - I can only guess that it would be correct for
802.16 to revise 802.16.2 and remove its current section
6.
Regards,
Dan
-----Original Message----- From: Reza Arefi
[mailto:reza.arefi@ieee.org] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003
12:00 AM To: 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail) Subject:
stds-80220-coexistence: Coexistence CG's next call this
Friday
Hi,
Here are the numbers for our conference call on Friday 10/31/03, from 1:00 to 2:00 PM EST.
US domestic: 1 800 882 3610
International: +1 412 380 2000
Passcode: 3322050#
Thanks to Flarion for providing the
bridge.
We will go over the draft recommendation
document section by section and will try to cover as much as we can. I
have attached that document to this email. It includes what was sent out
on 10/10 plus additional text for section 5 sent on
10/24 shown in red (track changes on). I am calling it
r0_temp.