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

RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Items 1.1 and 1.2



Dan,
Thanks for the compiled document. It certainly helps.
Regarding your comment about item 1.2.2, your points are valid. They are, however, covered by other items in the list. For instance, "general outline of the workplan" is covered by items 1, 6, and 7. "Analysis methodologies" is under 2, and to some extent 3 and 4. "release plan" could fall under again 6 and 7. So, I felt we can keep item 1.2.2 dedicated to the  liaison issue.
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 09, 2003 5:17 PM
To: '802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: stds-80220-coexistence: Items 1.1 and 1.2

All,
 
My comments are interspersed in Reza's text. In addition I have started new text for section  2 - Analysis of what is in the various [mobile wireless standards] types of documents.
 
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Reza Arefi [mailto:reza.arefi@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:58 PM
To: reza.arefi@ieee.org; '802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)'
Subject: stds-80220-coexistence: Items 1.1 and 1.2

 


All,
 

1.1  Coexistence among 802.20 systems - This would be inevitable. Specifically, with 802.20 having both TDD and FDD variants that could be deployed in the same band, Coexistence TG has no choice but to analyze the coexistence of 802.20 TDD and 802.20 FDD systems in both geographically and spectrally adjacent cases.

[Dan]:  I concur. As a general rule, we should also identify and analyze the worst-case scenarios and determine the CE (abbreviation for "coexistence") impact and mitigation techniques.

1.2  and 1.2.1 Coexistence among 802.20 and non-802.20 systems - Analyzing coexistence of 802.20 and non-802.20 would depend on identification of target bands for 802.20 deployment. Although theoretically possible to deploy 802.20 in any mobile band below 3.5 GHz, it is impractical to analyze all the bands. My recommendation would be to recommend to the Coexistence TG to pick a few "target bands", given the regulatory and business factors, and then analyze the coexistence of 802.20 with the systems that are already deployed in those specific bands. These "target bands" could be the ones that are more likely to see 802.20 deployment in the near future. For instance, 2.5-2.69 GHz, in my opinion, would qualify for a target band in the US and probably elsewhere.

[Dan]  While it is important to analyze potential coexistence issues in every target band, a safe way to preempt most of these problems is to adopt the same (or more stringent) emission and susceptibility levels specified by incumbent wireless technology standards and relevant ITU Recommendations.  Clearly, compliance with such standards is not enough - in certain deployment cases - to guarantee coexistence and this is where guidelines are needed. I also support the suggestion to identify and document the most likely target bands for deployment of 802.20 systems.
 

1.2.2 Liaison - This should be definitely left to the Coexistence TG to decide what other entities to have liaison with. The decision is going to depend, partly, on the selection of "target bands". I think it would be premature for the CG to make any recommendation on liaisons other than in the general sense, e.g. liaison with regulatory authorities, ITU-R, CEPT, etc., which the TG will most probably have anyways.

[Dan]  The heading of section 1.2.2 was "Rules of the road" and my view is that it includes: 1) a general outline of the CE work plan, 2) analysis methodologies, 3) liaison activity within IEEE 802 and with external standards and regulatory bodies, 4) documents release plan.


 

2. Analysis of what is in the various documents
2.1    Performance (mandatory): 

[Dan]  I have compiled and adapted the table of contents from the minimum performance specifications (sections headings in the case of IEEE 802.16.2-2001) of four wireless technologies: GSM, TDMA-136, cdma2000 and IEEE 802.16. The similarities among the first three are quite evident. 802.16's approach is to make equipment design recommendations, not to set minimum performance standards. In addition, unlike the other wireless technologies, 802.16.2-2001 also covers antenna design issues.

Disclaimer: Please note that the information provided in the attached document is limited for use as a discussion material in the Coexistence CG group only and is not to be circulated outside of this group. I make no claims of authenticity or accuracy of the compiled/adapted text contained in this document.

 


 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-coexistence@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Reza Arefi
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 11:04 AM
To: 802. 20 Coex CG (E-mail)
Subject: stds-80220-coexistence: Next conference call

All,
We will have our next conference call as scheduled on October 10th, 1:00 - 2:00 PM EDT. The conference bridge information will be announced later.
We will be focusing on the items 1 and 2 of the "to do" list prepared at the Singapore meeting. Item 6 is also related and we'll discuss that if time permits. I repeat these items here for your reference.
 

1. Coexistence in Licensed Spectrum

1.1 Among 802.20 systems

1.2 Among 802.20 and non-802.20 systems

1.2.1 Which

1.2.2 Rules of the road - (liaison activity)

2. Analysis of what is in the various types of documents

2.1 Performance (Mandatory)

2.2 Deployment guides (TR)

2.3 Coexistence (TR)

6. Documentation structure

 

Regards,

Reza