| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Cleveland
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 12:09 AM
To: 'Joanne Wilson'; Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; shigeru kimura; 802-20 IEEE requirements list
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12Joanne - If we "require" antenna diversity, then we also have to specify the expected performance. If we do not want to specify this performance, then I suggest that we not have a requirement for a diversity antenna in the terminal.Joseph Cleveland-----Original Message-----
From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 7:19 PM
To: Joseph Cleveland; Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; shigeru kimura; 802-20 IEEE requirements list
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12Dear Joseph,While we agree that diversity antennas should not be a mandatory requirement, I don't think we should follow your second suggestion. I believe we should stick to the "simple requirements mantra". If we try to establish specific performance requirements for various multi-antenna processing scenarios, we would have to define all the surrounding issues such as a channel model, interference, and even assumed separation of the antennas. These issues are best left for the channel modeling and evaluation groups to handle, and some parameters may even be implementation-specific and beyond the appropriate scope of the 802.20 standard. I therefore think that even though it would be an interesting discussion,it would be very difficult to derive specific performance targets for different antenna scenarios and there would belittle benefit in our trying to do so.Best regards,Joanne-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Cleveland
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:18 PM
To: 'Joanne Wilson'; Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; shigeru kimura; 802-20 IEEE requirements list
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12Hi Khurram and Shigeru,
I agree with Joanne regarding a requirement that terminals support diversity: diversity antennas should not be a mandatory requirement. What I suggest is that if antenna diversity in the terminal is provided, then specific performance and/or processing requirements shall be met. An example is 2x2 antenna configuration with Alamouti coding.
Joseph Cleveland
-----Original Message-----
From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 2:25 PM
To: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; shigeru kimura; 802-20 IEEE requirements list
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12
Dear Khurram,
I don't understand your argument for requiring that 802.20 terminals have antenna diversity. As you stated, existing systems have these capabilities in the pipeline. Therefore, in the future there will be mobile terminals with and without antenna diversity. I don't believe that existing systems will stop supporting terminals with a single antenna. As you know, market needs vary for many reasons in different places and with different market segments, often requiring tradeoffs between performance, cost and other factors like terminal size. I believe what Kimura-san is proposing is that 802.20 support having terminals with multiple antennas, but that terminals with single antennas would also be allowed. This seems extremely reasonable and it should be in both the operators' and the consumers' interest. I also support Samir's proposal to use the term "multi-antenna processing" instead of antenna diversity as it is broader in scope.
Best regards,
Joanne Wilson
ArrayComm, Inc.
joanne@arraycomm.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 12:19 AM
To: shigeru kimura; 802-20 IEEE requirements list
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12
Dear Mr. Kimura
I have to disagree with your notion of not putting a minimum requirement on antenna diversity. Current generation systems have these capabilities in the pipeline, so it seems very illogical not to shoot for higher performance by putting at least a minimum requirement for antenna diversity.
Bets Regards
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: shigeru kimura [mailto:shigeru_kimura@csg.kyocera.co.jp]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:23 PM
To: 802-20 IEEE requirements list
Cc: Shigeru_Kimura@csg.kyocera.co.jp
Subject: stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12
Dear ALL
This is Shigeru Kimura.
I want to propose to remove the section 4.1.12 of Rev 5.
Section 4.1.12 - Antenna Diversity
Current text
At a minimum, both the Base Station and the Mobile Terminal shall
provide two element diversity. Diversity may be an integral part of
an advanced antenna solution.
Proposed New text
N/A(Delete section)
Rationale
Support for multiple antenna capability is described section 4.1.11.
Section 4.1.12 defines a minimum antenna number for
Base Station and Mobile Terminal.
There is a contradiction between 4.1.11 and 4.1.12.
Only section 4.1.11 description is enough for multiple antenna capability I
think.
And the antenna number of Mobile Terminal should not be defined in the
Requirements Document.
The important thing is the system performance with cost.Thank you.
Kimura