|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I wanted to follow up my comment on today's call, adding a second comment for which there was no time for discussion.
From your contribution, it's a little hard to understand exactly what you are proposing in terms of contributions to WP5D: what would be contributed, and when. As you've shown, the IMT-2020 proposals are due in June 2019. There is no expectation of pre-proposals before that. Some potential proponents reviewed their intentions at last month's workshop, but those were not formal submissions, just informative updates.
As noted by the ANNI Chair today, the WG passed a motion to "Invite AANI to prepare draft documents meeting the 31 Jan 2018 requirements for submission of 11 to ITU-R Working Party 5D as an IMT-2020 5G RIT." But the content of such a submission is ambiguous, since 31 Jan 2018 requirements are nonexistent. There are many ways for ANNI to prepare a submission in accordance with the invitation. It may be better to first reach consensus on which technologies would be proposed, and for which test environments, before proceeding with the details of analysis and simulation.
This brings me to the other issue I wanted to raise at the end of the call. You correctly cited the language of Step 2 reading "An RIT needs to fulfil the minimum requirements for at least three test environments; two test environments under eMBB and one test environment under mMTC or URLLC." However, before jumping in, let's see what we're getting into. In particular, in Step 6, "the evaluated proposal for an RIT/SRIT is assessed as a qualifying RIT/SRIT, if an RIT/SRIT fulfils the minimum requirements for the five test environments comprising the three usage scenarios. Such a qualified RIT/SRIT will go forward for further consideration in Step 7."
I want to emphasize the distinction. If the proposal meets only three test environment requirements, it can meet the definition of a RIT and be evaluated. However, unless it's assessed to meet all five test environment requirements, it won't be included in IMT-2020.
We should understand the distinction. Step 6 allows for "possible consensus-building for candidate RITs or SRITs including those that initially do not fulfil the minimum requirements of IMT-2020." This allows for RIT that don't meet all the test environments to merge, forming sets of RITs (SRITs) that together can cover all five.
There is a big difference between three and five. Five means meeting, for example:
*Rural eMBB (e.g., 0.45 bit/s/Hz at 500 km/h with cell spacing of 1732 m in 700 MHz band; 0.8 bit/s/Hz at 30 km/h with cell spacing of 6 km in 700 MHz or 4 GHz band)
*mMTC (e.g. 1,000,000 devices per km^2 with cell spacing of 500 m (10 MHz channel) or 1732 m (50 MHz channel)
*URLLC (e.g. 1 ms data plane latency, 0.99999 success probability of transmitting a 32 byte Layer 2 PDU within 1 ms, in 700 MHz or 4 GHz band with cell spacing of 500 m)
So, what is the long-term strategy? Is the idea to:
(a) get to Step 6 but not qualify for IMT-2020?
(b) document that 802.11 can meet all five environments?
(c) join with other technologies in a SRIT?
If the strategy is (c), then one possible purpose of an early submission would be to advertise that intention to possible outside partners.
On November 19, 2017 at 8:31:02 PM, Rakesh Taori (rakesh.taori@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: