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