Joseph, while a 2x2 antenna configuration with Alamouti coding may be a
good design point, we would want to avoid that type of specification unless it
could be reasonably shown that this was the only antenna configuration that
could lead to a useful solution set.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:17
PM
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements:
Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.1 2
Hi Khurram and Shigeru,
I agree with Joanne regarding a requirement that terminals
support diversity: diversity antennas should not be a mandatory
requirement. What I suggest is that if antenna diversity in the
terminal is provided, then specific performance and/or processing
requirements shall be met. An example is 2x2 antenna configuration
with Alamouti coding.
Joseph Cleveland
-----Original Message-----
From:
Joanne Wilson [mailto:joanne@arraycomm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 2:25 PM
To: Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; shigeru kimura; 802-20 IEEE
requirements list
Subject: RE:
stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12
Dear Khurram,
I don't understand your argument for requiring that 802.20
terminals have antenna diversity. As you stated, existing systems have
these capabilities in the pipeline. Therefore, in the future there
will be mobile terminals with and without antenna diversity. I don't
believe that existing systems will stop supporting terminals with a single
antenna. As you know, market needs vary for many reasons in different
places and with different market segments, often requiring tradeoffs between
performance, cost and other factors like terminal size. I believe what
Kimura-san is proposing is that 802.20 support having terminals with
multiple antennas, but that terminals with single antennas would also be
allowed. This seems extremely reasonable and it should be in both the
operators' and the consumers' interest. I also support Samir's
proposal to use the term "multi-antenna processing" instead of antenna
diversity as it is broader in scope.
Best regards,
Joanne Wilson
ArrayComm, Inc.
joanne@arraycomm.com
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]
Sent: Friday,
August 08, 2003 12:19 AM
To: shigeru kimura; 802-20
IEEE requirements list
Subject: RE:
stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12
Dear Mr. Kimura
I have to disagree with your notion of not putting a minimum
requirement on antenna diversity. Current generation systems have these
capabilities in the pipeline, so it seems very illogical not to shoot for
higher performance by putting at least a minimum requirement for antenna
diversity.
Bets Regards
Khurram P. Sheikh
Chief Technology
Advisor
Sprint- Broadband Wireless
Tel (SM): 650-513-2056
Tel(KC):
913-762-1645
Mobile: 650-906-8989
khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com
-----Original Message-----
From:
shigeru kimura [mailto:shigeru_kimura@csg.kyocera.co.jp]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:23 PM
To: 802-20 IEEE requirements list
Cc:
Shigeru_Kimura@csg.kyocera.co.jp
Subject:
stds-80220-requirements: Antenna Diversity Requirement, 4.1.12
Dear ALL
This is Shigeru Kimura.
I want to propose to remove the section 4.1.12 of Rev
5.
Section 4.1.12 - Antenna Diversity
Current text
At a minimum, both the Base Station and the Mobile
Terminal shall
provide two element diversity.
Diversity may be an integral part of
an
advanced antenna solution.
Proposed New
text
N/A(Delete section)
Rationale
Support for multiple antenna capability is described
section 4.1.11.
Section 4.1.12 defines a
minimum antenna number for
Base Station and
Mobile Terminal.
There is a contradiction
between 4.1.11 and 4.1.12.
Only
section 4.1.11 description is enough for multiple antenna
capability I
think.
And the antenna number of Mobile Terminal should not be
defined in the
Requirements Document.
The important thing is the system performance with
cost.
Thank you.
Kimura