[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: stds-80220-coexistence: RE: Coexistence CG Kick-off



Joanne,
Thanks for your input.
 
Item 1: I generally agree with you that guidance out of 802.20 would help specially the service providers. The issue, however, is that providing guidance on " how to address potential coexistence issues that may arise in the deployment of an 802.20 system" actually depends on the bands we pick. I believe there are globally harmonized bands below 3.5 GHz allocated to the mobile service that the group could pick for analysis later on. Are there such bands for both TDD and FDD?
 
Item 2: Agreed.
 
Item 3: The reason I suggested discussion on this topic was that Jim's contributions in SF meeting suggested that Coexistence issues need to be resolved before work on the air interface could begin. I am trying to see what are these issues that need to be resolved that are prerequisite to drafting the PHY and the MAC. I don't know of any standard work dealing with licensed bands that has put coexistence analyses in advance of the air interface specifications. Typically, Coexistence is either done after the air interface drafting or in parallel to it because it needs input from the air interface specifications. Jim? Any input?
 
Item 4: I also think that 802.20 TDD-FDD interference would be the most problematic, specially the Base-to-Base and Mobile-to-Mobile cases. This is also, as you know, what ITU-R studies found for the IMT-2000 TDD-FDD systems.
 
Reza
-----Original Message-----
From: Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:44 AM
To: reza.arefi@ieee.org; '802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: stds-80220-coexistence: RE: Coexistence CG Kick-off

Reza,
 
Please see my answers below to the questions you posed:
 
  1. Given the fact that 802.20 will be deployed in licensed bands, does 802.20 WG need to address coexistence or should the matter be left to the regulatory regime in each country?   ANSWER: Regulatory approaches to spectrum management, as well as the specific bands that the 802.20 systems may be used in is likely to vary from country to country.   It would therefore be useful for 802.20 to provide guidance to both operators and regulators on how address potential coexistence issues that may arise in the deployment of an 802.20 system.
  2. In case the WG chooses to take up the task, should it create a "Recommended Practice" (one containing the word "should") or a "Guideline" (one containing the word "may")?   ANSWER:  I believe a "Recommended Practice" would be most useful.  Even though neither would be mandatory, I believe a Recommended Practice would carry more weight and would be more likely to be implemented.
  3. What are coexistence related issues that need to be resolved before the work on the air interface could begin?    ANSWER:  None, off hand come to mind.  Any suggestions?
  4. Should the coexistence work focus on the coexistence of 802.20 TDD and FDD variants as the primary source of interference problems? Or should it focus on coexistence with other systems?   ANSWER:  I believe the most likely scenario would be that 802.20 TDD and FDD systems could occupy adjacent bands in the same geographic area.  It may also be possible (though, personnally I hope it would be avoided) that a TDD system could operate co-channel with either a FDD uplink or an FDD downlink band in an adjacent geographic area.  This could be the case either in neighboring markets in the same country or could be a cross border situation between two countries.  These are the scenarios that I believe should be the highest priority for the Coexistence CG.
Best regards,
 
Joanne Wilson
ArrayComm, Inc.
(202)669-4006  (Direct)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Reza Arefi
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:20 PM
To: reza.arefi@ieee.org; '802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)'
Subject: stds-80220-coexistence: RE: Coexistence CG Kick-off

Resubmission of the previous message so that it gets into the archives.
Reza
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Reza Arefi
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:22 AM
To: 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)
Subject: Coexistence CG Kick-off

Dear Coexistence CG participants,

 

In its July meeting, 802.20 WG chose to form a Coexistence Correspondence Group to "study and create a consensus recommendation on how to address the issues of coexistence of future 802.20 systems with other wireless technologies deployed in the licensed bands below 3.5 GHz."

There were two contributions on the issue of coexistence presented to the WG.

 

-         C802.20-03/72, by Reza Arefi

-         C802.20-03/61r1, by Jim Tomcik, Ayman Naguib, and Arak Sutivong

 

The above two contributions, while consistent on acknowledging the challenges of the task, presented different views on how to address the issue within 802.20. While document 72 asked for a Coexistence Task Group within 802.20 to deal exclusively with the issue in parallel to the air interface work, document 61r1 suggested that the matter should be studied by the entire body in series prior to the air interface work.

 

The goal of the CG is to come up with a recommendation on the best way to address coexistence within the WG. The coexistence analyses themselves are outside the scope of the CG and are left to a Coexistence document that 802.20 is likely to produce. Therefore, I see the output of this CG as a concise document (probably one page) that includes a clear recommendation to the WG and the rationale behind that recommendation.

 

The way I propose to go forward is to have open discussions on the reflector for a while so that we get a sense of the range of opinions and the amount of interest in the subject. I will submit to the group a compilation of all views prior to our first conference call on August 15. I propose the following four specific topics for discussion on the reflector so that we stay focused on what we are chartered to do. Please feel free to choose from the list or suggest other related topics I might have missed.

 

  1. Given the fact that 802.20 will be deployed in licensed bands, does 802.20 WG need to address coexistence or should the matter be left to the regulatory regime in each country?
  2. In case the WG chooses to take up the task, should it create a "Recommended Practice" (one containing the word "should") or a "Guideline" (one containing the word "may")?
  3. What are coexistence related issues that need to be resolved before the work on the air interface could begin?
  4. Should the coexistence work focus on the coexistence of 802.20 TDD and FDD variants as the primary source of interference problems? Or should it focus on coexistence with other systems?

 

Looking forward to your participation.

Regards,

Reza