Re: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution
Joanne,
Your proposal does add clarity to the discussion.
However, it is not clear that we have consensus support. Though silence maybe consensus, it is useful to hear from the earlier proponents of wider channel bandwidths. I have copied a number of individuals who I believe were proponents. I ask them to give us some direct feedback. If I have missed proponents or have missed stated their positions, I apologize in advance.
I do propose a change in your proposed in "Action 2" 4.1.4.
You proposed:
"Additionally, requirements for 802.20 systems targeted for the larger allocation bandwidths (i.e. 2x10 or 2x20 MHz FDD allocations, and 20 MHz or 40 MHz TDD allocations) are presented in [Section][Addendum] XX of this document.1.4."
My proposal:
"Requirements for 802.20 systems applicable only to specific channel bandwidths are highlighted and noted in each section of this document. Unless highlighted and noted the requirements stated in each section shall be applicable to all channel bandwidths and allocations listed above."
Rationale:
Many of requirements should be applicable to all channel bandwidths. If there are requirements specific to the channel bandwidth, the proponent(s) should highlight them. These could be for wider or narrower channel bandwidths. It is much easier for the reader of the requirements document to understand the differences versus referring back to an addendum. This will also reduce any ambiguity between common requirements and specific requirements.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 9/10/2003 5:20:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, joanne@arraycomm.com writes:
> Folks,
> It appears that there is consensus support for Mark Klerer's proposal in his September 2nd
> email. To capture that in the Requirements Document, I propose the following:
>
> Proposal:
> Section 4.1.4 Channel Bandwidth
>
> Current Text:
> The AI shall support bandwidths in multiples of 5 MHz in downlink and uplink.
>
> Action 1:
> Change the title of section heading to:
>
> 4.1.4. Support for different allocation bandwidths
>
> Rationale:
>
> This seems to be more in keeping with this basic requirement which is to support deployment
> of 802.20 systems in different allocation bandwidths.
>
> Action 2:
>
> Replace the current text in 4.1.4. with the following:
>
>
> The AI shall support deployment of 802.20 systems in the following allocation
> bandwidths:
> +---------------------------------------------- -+
> | | |
> | FDD Allocations | 2 x 1.25 MHz |
> | | 2 x 5 MHz |
> | | 2 x 10 MHz |
> | | 2 x 20 MHz |
> +-----------------------+-----------------------+
> | | |
> | TDD Allocations | 2.5 MHz |
> | | 5 MHz |
> | | 10 MHz |
> | | 20 MHz |
> | | 40 MHz |
> +-----------------------+-----------------------+
> The individual 802.20 AI proposals may optimize their MAC and PHY designs for
> specific bandwidth and duplexing schemes. Additionally, requirements for 802.20
> systems targeted for the larger allocation bandwidthss (i.e. 2x10 or 2x20 MHz
> FDD allocations, and 20 MHz or 40 MHz TDD allocations) are presented in [Section][Addendum]
> XX of this document.
>
> Rationale:
> This text captures the proposal put forth by Mark Klerer on September 2 addressing the
> interests of the various parties in the discussion about allocation bandwidths. To remove ambiguity
> about the specific allocations for FDD and TDD systems, they are listed in a table so the reader
> doesn't have to know that 2 x N MHz (FDD) is equivalent to. 2N MHz (TDD) allocations.
>
> NOTE: I am also proposing to add 5MHz to the list for TDD allocations since it is not
> unusual to see allocations of this size for TDD systems. Also, the text of the section
> or addendum related to systems for higher allocation bandwidths should be proposed
> by the proponents of those options.
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> I hope this proposed text is acceptable to everyone.
>
> Best regards,
> Joanne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Klerer Mark
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:18 AM
> To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution
>
>
> Proposal for a Way Forward:
>
> It is becoming obvious that there are constituencies for both the 1.25 - 5 MHz channel bandwidth range and for the channel bandwidth range of 10-20 MHz. I would, therefore, like to propose that we accommodate both ranges (see below).
>
> I would, first like to point out that when we were speaking about 1.25 and 5 MHz that is for paired FDD spectrum, i.e. the total bandwidth a service provider will need is 2 x 1.25 and 2 x 5 MHz (I.E. 2.5 and 10MHz allocations). For TDD systems that translate to 2.5 and 10 MHz unpaired spectrum, respectively. (This is made clear in a footnote to the Table in item 18 of the PAR { 802.20 - PD-02 } for the 1.25 MHz system - the PAR table does not show the 5 MHz parameters). I propose we stick with this convention of referring to bandwidth of the channel in this way. This will imply that when we speak about 10 MHz and 20 MHz channel bandwidth we are speaking about allocations of 20 and 40 MHz, respectively (with TDD free to split this bandwidth asymmetrically).
>
> I would like to propose that we agree to the following:
> 1. Accommodate channel bandwidths of 1.25, 5, 10 and 20 MHz (i.e. systems requiring allocation of 2.5, 5, 20 and 40 MHz).
> 2. The individual systems are allowed to optimize their PHY and MAC designs for bandwidth and duplexing scheme.
> 3. The Requirements document either includes a separate section or we create an Addendum that addresses requirements for the 10 and 20 MHz systems. [I propose that we need to get some closure on the issues raised on the conference call and prior e-mails as to, e.g. whether we envision this to be used only for capacity increase (and CAPEX reduction - as noted by Jim) or whether we (also) envision the introduction of new services that require more bandwidth (as indicated by David McGinnis) so that there is some guidance for the design of these systems].
>
> I believe the above would allow us to move forward on a common basis creating a specification (or specifications) that will satisfy the various international needs for now and the foreseeable future.
>
> With the understanding that the 20MHz design will require an allocation of 40 MHz I would be interested in opinions
> whether we already need to address this at this time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark Klerer