Re: stds-80220-requirements: Functional Requirements Rev 3 available in Drop Box

["YUZA Masaaki" <yuzam@pb.jp.nec.com>]

Khurram, Joseph, Dave, Marianna, Dan, Samir and all:

Thanks for Khurram, Joseph, Dave, Marianna, Dan and Samir.

I understand Link Budget is a critical factor for service providers.
But, Now we develop a standard for many service providers all over the
world.
May be, Service providers have different target users, PDA, Hand Held
Computer,Auto Mobile,Train e.t.c..

We should develop useful standard for all providers.
Define high value lower limit of Link Budget, obstracts cheaper service that
use small interface card with small antenna.

I think, Link Budget is a Requirement factor from service provider to system
suplier for service provider specific system.
It's not a general factor for all service providers.

Then, I proposed to delete "4.6 Link Budget" on Requirements.

Thank you.

Regards,

********************************
YUZA Masaaki
NEC infrontia Corp.
E-mail:yuzam@pb.jp.nec.com
tel:+81-44-820-4682(personal)
tel:+81-44-820-4545
fax:+81-44-820-4555
********************************

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]" <khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com>
To: "Joseph Cleveland" <JClevela@sta.samsung.com>; "YUZA Masaaki"
<yuzam@pb.jp.nec.com>; "Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]"
<david.s.mcginniss@mail.sprint.com>; <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:37 AM
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Functional Requirements Rev 3
available in Drop Box


Yuza, Joseph, Dave and all:



Link Budget is captured in the requirements document as a substitute for
cell size/ range and also as a directional value i.e. >160 dB than a
specific value to allow for specific EIRP implementations in different
regions of the world.



As a service provider, it is critical for us to have a link budget that
meets minimum coverage/ range requirement in different environments. It
would not be good to just a have ranges in kms/miles as that estimation
would require more information as to base station heights, propagation
conditions etc but giving a hardware link budget requirements sets the
expectation of not only the minimum power requirements but most
importantly technology advancements/ improvements that need to be met to
achieve the system performance in terms of range and capacity.



Additionally, I don't agree with the 150-170 dB figure as

1)       The low end seems is near-equivalent to current systems and
hence does not meet the PAR requirements to be significantly better

2)       The wide range (20 dB delta) seems to make the requirement
irrelevant.



In short, I would propose to have the directional statement of link
budget performance >160 dB so that we are looking at the advanced
technologies that will meet service provider requirements.



Thanks



Khurram



Khurram P. Sheikh

Chief Technology Advisor

Sprint- Broadband Wireless

Tel (SM): 650-513-2056

Tel(KC): 913-762-1645

Mobile: 650-906-8989

khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Cleveland [mailto:JClevela@sta.samsung.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:02 AM
To: 'YUZA Masaaki'; Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG];
stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Functional Requirements Rev 3
available in Drop Box



Yuza, Dave and All:

I agree with Yuza that the usefulness of link budgets in the functional
requirements is questionable.  Instead, I suggest a useful place is in
evaluation criteria and/or in channel model descriptions.

The functional requirements should reflect performance under different
propagation conditions (multipath, mobility & doppler, interference,
etc.).  The link budget reflects implementation for specific RF designs.

Joseph Cleveland

-----Original Message----- 
From: YUZA Masaaki [mailto:yuzam@pb.jp.nec.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:02 PM
To: Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: Functional Requirements Rev 3
available in Drop Box



Dear Dave and all:

    I have a comment for "Functional Requirements Rev 3.".

Section 4.6 Link Budget
Page 11, Lines 31-Page 12, Lines 3

COMMENT:
    Definition of link budget shall be involved in the transmission
power a part of product performance not the system performance.

    That makes a possibility of not to implement by EIRP standards in
each country, and the value shall not be defined here.



Thank you.

Regards,

********************************
YUZA Masaaki
NEC infrontia Corp.
E-mail:yuzam@pb.jp.nec.com
tel:+81-44-820-4682(personal)
tel:+81-44-820-4545
fax:+81-44-820-4555
********************************

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Klerer Mark" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>
To: <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: stds-80220-requirements: Functional Requirements Rev 3
available in Drop Box



Requirements Correspondence Group Participants,

As requested by David McGinnis, revision 3 of the functional criteria CG
contribution has been placed in the drop box.



STDS-80220-REQUIREMENTS Drop-Box

802.20 Requirements Document - Rev.3

<http://ieee802.org/20/DropBox/802.20%20requirements%20Document%20rev%20
3.pd
f>
<http://ieee802.org/20/DropBox/802.20%20requirements%20Document%20rev%20
3.do
c>
802.20 Requirements Document - Rev.3 (Dave S Mcginnis, July 10, 2003)



Best regards,

Mark Klerer