-----Original Message-----
From: Klerer Mark
[mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003
5:18 PM
To:
stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE:
stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution
Proposal for a Way Forward:
It is becoming
obvious that there are constituencies for both the 1.25 - 5 MHz channel
bandwidth range and for the channel bandwidth range of 10-20 MHz. I would,
therefore, like to propose that we accommodate both ranges (see below).
I would, first
like to point out that when we were speaking about 1.25 and 5 MHz that is for
paired FDD spectrum, i.e. the total bandwidth a service provider will need is 2
x 1.25 and 2 x 5 MHz (I.E. 2.5 and 10MHz allocations). For TDD systems that
translate to 2.5 and 10 MHz unpaired spectrum, respectively. (This is made
clear in a footnote to the Table in item 18 of the PAR { 802.20
- PD-02 } for the 1.25 MHz system - the PAR table does not show the 5 MHz
parameters). I propose we stick with this convention of referring to bandwidth
of the channel in this way. This will imply that when we speak about 10 MHz and
20 MHz channel bandwidth we are speaking about allocations of 20 and 40 MHz,
respectively (with TDD free to split this bandwidth asymmetrically).
I would like to
propose that we agree to the following:
1.
Accommodate channel bandwidths of 1.25, 5, 10 and 20 MHz
(i.e. systems requiring allocation of 2.5, 5, 20 and 40 MHz).
2.
The individual systems are allowed to optimize their PHY and
MAC designs for bandwidth and duplexing scheme.
3.
The Requirements document either includes a separate section
or we create an Addendum that addresses requirements for the 10 and 20 MHz
systems. [I propose that we need to get some closure on the issues raised on
the conference call and prior e-mails as to, e.g. whether we envision this to
be used only for capacity increase (and CAPEX reduction - as noted by Jim) or
whether we (also) envision the introduction of new services that require more
bandwidth (as indicated by David McGinnis) so that there is some guidance for
the design of these systems].
I believe the
above would allow us to move forward on a common basis creating a specification
(or specifications) that will satisfy the various international needs for now
and the foreseeable future.
With the
understanding that the 20MHz design will require an allocation of 40 MHz I
would be interested in opinions whether we already need to address this at this
time.
Regards,
Mark Klerer
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************