Hi All,
I have a mild concern with bandwidths on the order of 20-40
MHz:
1) What use cases drive this need?
2) Is there spectrum available below 3.5 GHz?
3) Is 802.20 trying to compete with 802.16b or e?
No real heartburn on this, but just trying to understand
why.
Joseph Cleveland
-----Original Message-----
From:
Jerry1upton@aol.com [mailto:Jerry1upton@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:25 PM
To: joanne@arraycomm.com; M.Klerer@flarion.com;
stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Cc:
joconnor@ipwireless.com; JClevela@sta.samsung.com; scrowley@attglobal.net;
Mark.Cudak@motorola.com; imamura.daichi@jp.panasonic.com;
Trinkwon@compuserve.com; fwatanabe@ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 -
Channel bandwidth resolution
Joanne,
Your proposal does add clarity
to the discussion.
However, it is not clear that we have consensus support. Though silence
maybe consensus, it is useful to hear from the earlier proponents of wider
channel bandwidths. I have copied a number of individuals who I believe were
proponents. I ask them to give us some direct feedback. If I have missed
proponents or have missed stated their positions, I apologize in
advance.
I do propose a change in your proposed in "Action 2"
4.1.4.
You
proposed:
"Additionally, requirements for 802.20
systems targeted for the larger allocation bandwidths (i.e. 2x10 or 2x20 MHz
FDD allocations, and 20 MHz or 40 MHz TDD allocations) are presented in
[Section][Addendum] XX of this document.1.4."
My proposal:
"Requirements for 802.20 systems applicable only to specific channel
bandwidths are highlighted and noted in each section of this document. Unless
highlighted and noted the requirements stated in each section shall be
applicable to all channel bandwidths and allocations listed above."
Rationale:
Many of requirements should
be applicable to all channel bandwidths. If there are requirements specific to
the channel bandwidth, the proponent(s) should highlight them. These could be
for wider or narrower channel bandwidths. It is much easier for the reader of
the requirements document to understand the differences versus referring back
to an addendum. This will also reduce any ambiguity between common
requirements and specific requirements.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 9/10/2003 5:20:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joanne@arraycomm.com writes:
> Folks,
> It appears that there
is consensus support for Mark Klerer's proposal
>
in his September 2nd email. To capture that in the Requirements
> Document, I propose the following:
>
> Proposal:
> Section 4.1.4 Channel Bandwidth
>
> Current Text:
> The AI shall support bandwidths in multiples of 5 MHz in downlink
and
> uplink.
>
> Action 1:
> Change the
title of section heading to:
>
>
4.1.4. Support for different allocation bandwidths
>
> Rationale:
>
> This seems to be more in
keeping with this basic requirement which is
> to
support deployment of 802.20 systems in different allocation
> bandwidths.
>
> Action 2:
>
> Replace the current text in 4.1.4. with the following:
>
>
> The AI shall support deployment of 802.20 systems
in the following
> allocation
> bandwidths:
>
+---------------------------------------------- -+
>
|
|
|
> | FDD
Allocations
| 2 x 1.25
MHz |
>
|
| 2 x 5
MHz |
>
|
| 2 x 10
MHz |
>
|
| 2 x 20
MHz |
> +-----------------------+-----------------------+
>
|
|
|
> | TDD
Allocations
| 2.5
MHz
|
>
|
| 5
MHz
|
>
|
| 10
MHz
|
>
|
| 20
MHz
|
>
|
| 40
MHz
|
>
+-----------------------+-----------------------+
>
The individual 802.20 AI proposals may optimize their MAC and PHY
> designs for specific bandwidth and duplexing
schemes. Additionally,
> requirements for 802.20
systems targeted for the larger allocation
>
bandwidthss (i.e. 2x10 or 2x20 MHz FDD allocations, and 20 MHz or 40
> MHz TDD allocations) are presented in
[Section][Addendum] XX of this
> document.
>
> Rationale:
> This text captures the proposal put forth by Mark Klerer
on September
> 2 addressing the interests of the
various parties in the discussion
> about
allocation bandwidths. To remove ambiguity about the specific
> allocations for FDD and TDD systems, they are
listed in a table so the
> reader doesn't have to
know that 2 x N MHz (FDD) is equivalent to. 2N MHz (TDD) allocations.
>
> NOTE: I am also
proposing to add 5MHz to the list for TDD allocations
> since it is not unusual to see allocations of this size for TDD
> systems. Also, the text of the section or
addendum related to systems
> for higher allocation
bandwidths should be proposed by the proponents
>
of those options.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> I hope this proposed text is
acceptable to everyone.
>
> Best regards,
> Joanne
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Klerer Mark
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:18 AM
> 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