Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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

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

Yuza and All:

If we include link budgets in the Requirements, will they not become binding?  Perhaps, put them in an Appendix as advisory.

Joseph Cleveland

-----Original Message-----
From: YUZA Masaaki [mailto:yuzam@pb.jp.nec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:34 PM
To: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; Joseph Cleveland; Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org; Gal, Dan (Dan); Marianna Goldhammer; Kapoor Samir

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


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