Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Coexistence CG's next call this Friday



Reza,
 
Thank you for the clarifications on 802.16-D and its future content. I respect what they (.16) have accomplished thus far and the way they move up on the learning curve. I also concur that the 802.20 minimum performance specifications are an essential input for the Coexistence work, but believe that these specifications must be created by the 802.20 group and be part of the .20 standard. I support a Coexistence PAR that would create a coexistence guidelines and recommendation document, but would not include the minimum performance standards.
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 

[Dan] 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Reza Arefi [mailto:reza.arefi@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:10 AM
To: 'Gal, Dan (Dan)'; '802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Coexistence CG's next call this Friday

 Dan,
Thanks for your message.
It is true that 802.20's Coexistence Task Group (CTG) does not have to produce minimum equipment performance data. But it will certainly need that information to run simulations necessary for making meaningful recommendations and guidelines for coexistence. So, CTG either have to be given the task of producing that data or be given that data produced by whatever entity that will produce it.

 As for 802.16-REVd, it will be a combination of 802.16 (above 10 GHz), 802.16a (2-10 GHz), and 802.16c (system profiles for >10 GHz). The first two certainly do not include minimum performance data. The system profiles document is supposed to have the minimum performance data but leaves such things as spectral mask and spurious emissions to "local regulation" and doesn't specify any number. So, none of these include what you can find in section 5.5 of 802.16.2-REVa (the coexistence document) which applies to >10 GHz PMP systems (the 2-11 GHz part does not include such section on Equipment Design Parameters).  So, while I think 802.16 does not provide a good model for handling minimum performance requirements, I certainly believe that CTG needs those requirements to produce meaningful results.
 
Bottom line, I think the CTG, once formed, should decide on whether they want to take the burden of producing minimum performance data or just ask for it to be provided to them by the rest of the WG, and reflect this in the PAR they will write.
 
Regards,
Reza
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gal, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:58 PM
To: 'reza.arefi@ieee.org'; 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Coexistence CG's next call this Friday

Reza,
 
To reiterate -- my view is that the minimum performance standard must be part of the IEEE 802.20 PHY standard. The Coexistence issues and recommendations belong in a separate document (for which you need a new PAR).
 
FYI, I was informed (but not yet confirmed) that the IEEE 802.16 group intends to publish version 802.16d next year and include all minimum performance standards in that version. I am not sure what the fate of 802.16.2 will be - I can only guess that it would be correct for 802.16 to revise 802.16.2 and remove its current section 6.
 
 
Regards,
 
Dan 
-----Original Message-----
From: Reza Arefi [mailto:reza.arefi@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 12:00 AM
To: 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)
Subject: stds-80220-coexistence: Coexistence CG's next call this Friday

Hi,

Here are the numbers for our conference call on Friday 10/31/03, from 1:00 to 2:00 PM EST.

US domestic: 1 800 882 3610

International: +1 412 380 2000

Passcode: 3322050#

Thanks to Flarion for providing the bridge.

We will go over the draft recommendation document section by section and will try to cover as much as we can. I have attached that document to this email. It includes what was sent out on 10/10 plus additional text for section 5 sent on 10/24 shown in red (track changes on). I am calling it r0_temp.

Reza