RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Scott:
I fully agree, also with LI's note earlier. Was trying to get a message to
this effect onto this reflector for the last 36 hrs, but was travelling and
of course there was no 802.20 kit in operation (or come to that, 802.11
despite all the hype..)
Yes, your two paras. sum it up well.
BR, Dave J
OAK Global BV
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Migaldi Scott-W10265
Sent: 23 October 2003 22:41
To: 'stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: FW: 802.20 Requirements - Repeaters
Junyi has a very good point here.
The goal is low cost coverage and the use of repeaters are one type of
implementation to achieve this goal. There are other ways and I am sure that
there will be new ways to achieve this goal as well. To mandate repeaters as
part of the system deployment seems beyond the scope of a requirements
document, as much as mandating the use of alternate back up power support
for base stations.
These are system design questions and are not part of the basic air
interface support. I think to say that the 'AI should support the addition
of coverage enhancing technology' is all that we could do at this stage 1
level. Then we can address the details of what that means latter on as the
protocol and interface are developed.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Li Junyi [mailto:Junyi_Li@flarion.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 20:11
To: 'Joseph Cleveland '; Li Junyi; ''Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]' ';
"<stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>"@az33exr01.mot.com
Subject: 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