RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Hi all, (I'm a newbie that you will meet in ABQQ)
My $0.02:
It is appropriate that a requirements specification express the need for the
protocol to support both the standard station and repeater equipment /
topology. It is inappropriate to get into the details of any particular
device (or manufacturer's specs). If the requirements focus too much on the
existing and in-pipeline methods and technology, we may inadvertently
discourage or inhibit future developments of alternative devices and methods
that could help the 802.20 world. Later, when we draw swords during the
writing of the architecture and design documents, we can get down into the
nitty gritty details.
BTW, the "swords" remark was meant in loving jest.
newt
Newton Love
Alion Science & Technology (www.alionscience.com)
185 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis MD 21401
Background:
Alion S&T is a think tank company. We used to be IIT Research Institute
(IITRI) until the regents of the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT)
decided to sell us to raise money for increasing their endowment. We (the
employees) bought ourselves. We took the new name, which is pronounced
"uh-lion" as in "Lions, Tigers, and Bears." We are the inventors of
SillyPutty, magnetic tape, and a bunch of things. For almost 40 years, we
have supported the DoD Joint Spectrum Center in areas of spectrum planning
and use, as well as all types of electromagnetic effects and phenomena. I
work on that contract.
-newt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chickinsky, Alan [mailto:alan.chickinsky@ngc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:21 AM
> To: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements
> - Repeaters
>
>
>
> Joanne-
>
> I see the need for a repeater as a unique type device. I based this
> conclusion on what is being released for the 802.11 folk. So
> I feel that a
> repeater is a manditory requirement. But this requirement is
> not manditory
> for a handset or base station.
>
> Perhaps we should indicate those requirements that are for
> handsets, base
> stations, repeaters and other devices (yet to be named).
> Would that be
> acceptable?
>
> alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:53 PM
> To: Chickinsky, Alan; Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; Marianna
> Goldhammer;
> shigeru kimura; Li Junyi; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements
> - Repeaters
>
>
> Alan,
>
> I'm confused by your reply. My comment was on whether this
> requirement
> should be optional or mandatory, not about
> how it would be implemented. Having subsequently read the
> reply from
> Jesse Jewitt, I believe that she is even more
> on target with what should be nature of the requirement.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Joanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chickinsky, Alan [mailto:alan.chickinsky@ngc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:42 PM
> To: 'Joanne Wilson'; Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; Marianna Goldhammer;
> shigeru kimura; Li Junyi; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements
> - Repeaters
>
>
> Joanne-
>
> Your response to John assumes a specific hardware implementation of a
> specificaiotn that is not written. it appears that you are
> not open to the
> any idea that 802.20 could define a repeater that is no more
> than phy to phy
> (layer 1 to layer 1) implementation.
>
> I would urge you not to create and define a solution before we have a
> completed specification.
>
> alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:28 PM
> To: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; Marianna Goldhammer; shigeru
> kimura; Li
> Junyi; Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements
> - Repeaters
>
>
>
> John,
>
> While I recognize that the need you describe is valid, I respectfully
> disagree with your conclusion that therefore
> this must be mandatory within the standard. Certainly, any
> operator can
> make this a mandatory requirement
> on any equipment supplier that they select for their network
> deployments.
> However, since many responses have
> stated that there are alternative ways to provide in-building
> coverage,
> certainly with different performance and
> deployment cost implications, I would logically conclude that this
> requirement should be optional for the standard.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Joanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:08 PM
> To: Marianna Goldhammer; shigeru kimura; Li Junyi;
> Stds-80220-Requirements
> (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements
> - Repeaters
>
>
>
> Repeaters are going to be part of any deployment solution
> that requires a
> high percentage of in-building penetration. It just is not
> practical to
> expect to cover the inside of buildings that have 25 dB
> penetration losses
> using high power cell sites. Large penetration losses cause the cell
> radiuses to become small which creates high levels of inter-cell
> interference. There is a tradeoff between covering inside
> buildings, using
> high power cell sites, and the quality of the network in the
> surrounding
> area.
>
> The use of repeaters targets coverage into the areas that
> need it most while
> minimizing interference into other parts of the network.
>
> There maybe lower cost alternatives that specific vendors have or will
> develop in the future. However, operators need the
> flexibility to use newly
> developed alternatives or to use current technologies. Since
> every vendor
> is not going to have a lower cost alternative this needs to remain a
> mandatory requirement.
>
>
> John J. Humbert
> 6220 Sprint Parkway
> Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
> Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
> PCS (816) 210-9611
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Marianna Goldhammer
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:46 AM
> To: shigeru kimura; Li Junyi; 'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements
> - Repeaters
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I fully agree with Li-san, Junyi-san and Kimura-san.
>
> Issues to resolve are coverage, cost, interference.
>
> Marianna :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shigeru kimura [mailto:shigeru_kimura@csg.kyocera.co.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:40 AM
> To: Li Junyi; 'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'
> Cc: shigeru_kimura@csg.kyocera.co.jp
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements
> - Repeaters
>
>
>
> Hi Junyi-san
>
> I fully agree with you.
> > using a repeater by itself is not the goal;
> >the goal is to provide decent coverage at low cost.
>
> Yes, I think exactly same thing.
>
> Shigeru Kimura
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Li Junyi <Junyi_Li@flarion.com>@majordomo.ieee.org 2003/10/22 10:11:03
>
> 送信者: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
>
>
> 宛先: "'Joseph Cleveland '" <JClevela@sta.samsung.com>, Li Junyi
> <Junyi_Li@flarion.com>, "''Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]' '"
> <JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com>,
> "''stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org' '"
> <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>
> cc:
> 件名: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
>
>
>
> Hi, Joseph,
>
> Another way is to think about this issue at an even higher
> level: using a
> repeater by itself is not the goal; the goal is to provide
> decent coverage
> at
> low cost. If there are alternative solutions to achieve the
> same goal, why
> does
> the requirement care whether a repeater is used or not?
>
> Junyi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Cleveland
> To: 'Li Junyi'; 'Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]';
> 'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org'
> Sent: 10/21/2003 3:43 PM
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements
> - Repeaters
>
> Hi Li,
>
> Perhaps the requirement wording needs to indicate that the
> capability to
> support a repeater is mandatory, not that repeaters are mandatory.
>
> Joseph Cleveland
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Li Junyi [mailto:Junyi_Li@flarion.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:12 PM
> To: 'Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]'; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements -
> Repeaters
>
>
>
> Hi, everyone,
>
>
>
> Below are my two-cents on the issue of the repeaters.
>
>
>
> 1. The use of repeaters is a performance enhancement issue. In some
> situations, repeaters make sense. While in others, there are
> alternative
> ways as well. A mandatory requirement seems too strong.
>
> 2. The impact on the AI is subject to investigation. It may be a
> little too early to conclude that the system has to support huge delay
> or delay spread.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Junyi Li
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS] [mailto:JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:11 PM
> To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements -
> Repeaters
>
>
>
> Joanne et al.,
>
>
>
> Support for the use of repeaters needs to be a mandatory requirement
> because operators need to have this tool in their tool box to
> economically provide in-building coverage and in lightly populated
> areas. If you recall from the presentation in Singapore that KTF uses
> allot more repeaters than base stations in their network. The
> same trend
> is also occurring in the US.
>
>
>
> The impact on the AI is that the system has to support larger delay's
> and delay spreads.
>
>
>
> John J. Humbert
> 6220 Sprint Parkway
> Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
> Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
> PCS (816) 210-9611
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 11:10 PM
> To: Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements -
> Repeaters
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> It's not clear to me the AI design implications of the
> changes you have
> made. However,."should support" implies that
>
> support for repeaters is optional. Changing to "must not preclude"
> makes it a mandatory requirement. This change,
>
> at least to me, doesn't clarify the rationale so much as changes
> requirement itself. I support maintaining the previous wording of the
> requirement until we have a better understanding of the
> implications of
> the change and the rationale for such.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Joanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:28 AM
> To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
>
>
>
> Current Text
>
> Support for the use of Repeaters (Open)
>
> The system should support the use of repeaters
>
> Proposed Text
>
> The AI must not preclude the use of repeaters or reflectors to bypass
> obstructions and extend cell coverage.
>
>
>
> Rational
>
> 1) This text clarifies the rational given at the meeting in Singapore
>
> John J. Humbert
>
> 6220 Sprint Parkway
>
> Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
>
> Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
>
> PCS (816) 210-9611
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> **************************************************************
> **************
> ********
> This mail was sent via 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.
> **************************************************************
> **************
> ********
>