Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 1 IMT-Advanced Opening Report Date: 2008-09-07.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 1 IMT-Advanced Opening Report Date: 2008-09-07."— Presentation transcript:

1 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 1 IMT-Advanced Opening Report Date: Authors: Name Company Address Phone Bruce Kraemer Marvell 5488 Marvell Ln Santa Clara, CA Darwin Engwer Nortel Networks 4655 Great America Pkwy, Santa Clara CA

2 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 2 IEEE IMT-Advanced – November 2008 Technical portion of Circular Letter was completed in October 2008 (Korea) –October 7 workshop held WG11 Session Goals Review IMT-Advanced Status Review discussions held with WG21 in September Review WG18 plans for November Review concept of 802 contribution Discuss WG11 project options Present project recommendation to WG11 on Friday

3 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 3 September Goals for November Bring IMT-A to a WG11 vote in November –Present viability evaluation of handover options TGu, ANDSF, 21 –Are these options or any other of sufficient value to 11? –Can any solution or project meet the IMT-A submission schedule requirements –Can 11 convince any RIT candidate that it would be a valuable SRIT partner Or useful add-on?

4 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 4 Discussion Overview 1. No substantive changes to IMT-U WP5D requirements Korea activity tidied up incomplete documents 2. Best known option for WG11 is to continue engagement in support of WG16 Encouragement from WG21 and WG16 to remain as a component in the solution 3. Refine WG11 work proposal Thursday Participate in Tuesday discussion in WG18 Continue dialog with WG21 & WG16 on best aproach Consider WG11 project options (ad hoc or other ?)

5 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 5 WG21 Exchanges in Sept

6 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 6 Seoul Korea Workshop slide

7 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 7 Background Information

8 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 8 IMT Test Environments Base coverage urban – an urban macro-cellular environment targeting continuous coverage for pedestrian up to fast vehicular users Microcellular – an urban micro-cellular environment with higher user density focusing on pedestrian and slow vehicular users Indoor – an indoor environment targeting isolated cells at offices and/or in hotspot based on stationary and pedestrian users High speed – macro cells environment with high speed vehicular and trains

9 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 9 IMT-ADV Schedule Dubai Korea

10 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 10 One Page Summary Most of Circular letter components completed in Dubai –IMT.TECH contents/numbers finalized –IMT.EVAL contents/numbers finalized –Circular letter structure finalized Work to perform final cleanup and formatting will continue in correspondence Circular letter contents to be completed in WP5D Seoul, Korea October 8-15 –Technology Templates Also Workshop Tuesday October 7 WP5D Reports require approval by SG5 in November 10,11

11 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 11 Workshop Draft

12 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 12 July Conclusion Pursue the following topic: How quickly/best can we determine complementary fit with 16m and seriously consider an SRIT submission? Explore possibility of joint 11/16 teleconference discussion. Obtain/review 16m evaluation of IMT.TECH fit. Explore how to achieve handoff (for example use of.21 mechanisms)? Establish timing of decision/engineering input – deadline? Establish Teleconferences to discuss topic prior to September Include IMTA discussion topic in September schedule

13 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 13 September Discussion Premise Pursue the following topic: WG16 is primarily interested in and SRIT which would require WG11 to submit as an RIT indicted it was not interested in this path Is there a useful Next Best approach Explore how to achieve handoff (for example use of.21 mechanisms)? Need to generate.21 related slide by end of week?

14 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 14 IMT-A/802.11/ – Target Topic Sep 08 Background –IMT-A SRIT including solution requires use of – is not sufficiently interested in IMT-A to submit its technology as a RIT. –Without RIT status would need to consider a less direct partnership relationship such as as a media independent handover mechanism for non technologies Allows to be compliant with solution Goals –Is the mechanism currently usable for / handover in the context of IMT.TECH? –If not, exactly what needs to be added to , or to ensure adequate functionality?

15 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 15 Questions #1 16 has mobile base stations and clients 11 has mesh, 16 has relay stations that could be fixed or mobile Can 21 handle all of these terminal types? Can 21 help? Can 21 meet circular letter requirements? How can 11 determine that it would meet minimum requirements to be accepted as an RIT?

16 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 16 Question List #2 3GPP has ANDSF which parallels (or uses) 21. If 11 could use ANDSF it would be a valuable option. 21 might be used to increase the number of RIT interfaces especially if tied into the 3GPP RIT if connected through ANDSF Is 21 specification mature enough to be used –Security is not developed –Insufficient liaisons/support from mobile SDOs e.g. 3GPP –21 has good relationship with FMCA which suggests good link into wireline services with wired and wireless endpoints Rather than 21, interface thru TGu might be more viable –Better metrics?: Lower latency, shorter schedule time, security –Is there anything missing from TGU? –Does TGu have adequate liaisons and SDO acceptance? Is there any RIT that actually wants to partner with 11 in an SRIT?

17 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 17 Goal for November Bring to a WG11 vote in November –Evaluate viability of handover options TGu, ANDSF, 21 –Are these options or any other of sufficient value to 11? –Can any solution or project meet the IMT-A submission schedule requirements –Can 11 convince any RIT candidate that it would be a valuable SRIT partner Or useful add-on

18 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 18 IMT-Advanced RIT development process Jan 2008 Jul 2008 Jan 2009 Nov 2009 Jan 2009 Jul 2010 Jan 2009 Nov 2010 Jan 2009 Jan 2010 Jan 2009 Nov 2009

19 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 19 Meeting Report Documents Updated WP5D workplan was 5D-97 now TEMP-81 Workshop draft plan 5D-185 Activity Reports: 53 Services Aspects 96 Spectrum Aspects 94 AH-Circular Letter 81 & 53 + Attachment Chapter 2 - ITU-R WP 5D Structure and Workplan Meeting Report of Services WG

20 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 20 Submission Related Documents 89 (Rev 1)Draft New Report on Requirements related to technical system performance for IMT-Advanced Radio interface(s) [IMT.TECH] 90 (Rev 1)Draft New Report [Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for IMT-Advanced] 87 (Rev 1)Compliance template for Services 88 (Rev 1)Compliance template for technical performance 93 (Rev 1)Technology description template 78 (Rev 1)Draft new Report [IMT.REST] requirements, evaluation criteria, and submission templates for the development of IMT Advanced 86 (Rev 1) IMT-ADV/2 – Submission and evaluation process and consensus building

21 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 21 Supported Test Environments At least 1 required to propose candidate At least 3 required to enter final standardization phase.

22 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 22 Environments IMT-Advanced: Required Test Environments The critical decisions were made regarding the four test environments: Indoor Microcellular Base coverage urban High speed A radio interface technology (RIT) is required to satisfy the minimum performance requirements of a least one test environment, as specified by the proponent. A set of RITs (SRIT) needs to meet the requirements in at least two test environments. Later in the process, after evaluation of the proposals, only RITs or SRITs that meet the requirements in at least three test environments may proceed to be included in IMTAdvanced. Its possible, for example, for a candidate RIT that meets only one test environment to proceed through the process and be evaluated. However, during the consensus building process, it would need to join with other RIT partners to form a SRIT covering at least three test environments in order to be included in the IMTAdvanced recommendation.

23 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 23 Service Type Examples - Titles only From M.1822 Messaging Voice telephony Push-to-talk/Push-to-X High-quality video telephony Video conference Internet browsing Interactive gaming File transfer/download Multimedia e-Education Consultation Remote collaboration Mobile commerce Mobile broadcasting/multicasting Machine-to-machine Remote sensor Remote bio-monitoring Personal environment service ITS-enabled services Emergency calling Public alerting Number portability Priority service Lawful intercept Location-based services

24 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 24 Candidate RIT Info IMT.TECH highlights IMT.EVAL highlights

25 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 25 IMT- Advanced IMT.TECH - Radio Requirements 4.1 Cell Spectral Efficiency - Table Peak Spectral Efficiency –15 b/s/Hz downlink –6.75 b/s/Hz uplink 4.3 Bandwidth –At least 3, Scalable up to and including 40 MHz 4.4 Cell Edge User Spectral Efficiency – Table Control Plane Latency –<100ms User Plane Latency –<10 ms 4.6 Mobility up to 350 km/h - Table 3, Table Handover – Table VOIP Capacity – Table 6

26 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 26 Test environment **Downlink (b/s/Hz/cell) Uplink (b/s/Hz/cell) Indoor32.25 Microcellular Base coverage urban High speed IMT.TECH Cell Spectral Efficiency TABLE 1 Cell Spectral Efficiency Cell[1] spectral efficiency ( ) is defined as the aggregate throughput of all users (the number of correctly received bits, i.e. the number of bits contained in the SDUs delivered to Layer 3, over a certain period of time) divided by the channel bandwidth divided by the number of cells. The cell spectral efficiency is measured in b/s/Hz/cell. [1]A cell is equivalent to a sector, e.g. a 3-sector site has 3 cells.[1]

27 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 27 Test environment* *Downlink (b/s/Hz)Uplink (b/s/Hz) Indoor Microcellular Base coverage urban High speed IMT.TECH - 4.4Cell edge user spectral efficiency TABLE 2 Cell Edge User Spectral Efficiency The (normalized) user throughput is defined as the average user throughput (i.e., the number of correctly received bits by users, i.e. the number of bits contained in the SDU delivered to Layer 3, over a certain period of time, divided by the channel bandwidth and is measured in b/s/Hz. The cell edge user spectral efficiency is defined as 5% point of CDF of the normalized user throughput. Table 2 lists the cell edge user spectral efficiency requirements for various test environments.

28 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 28 Peak Spectral Efficiency IMT.TECH - 4.2Peak spectral efficiency The peak spectral efficiency is the highest theoretical data rate (normalised by bandwidth), which is the received data bits assuming error-free conditions assignable to a single mobile station, when all available radio resources for the corresponding link direction are utilised (that is excluding radio resources that are used for physical layer synchronisation, reference signals or pilots, guard bands and guard times).

29 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 29 Bits/s/HzSpeed (km/h) Indoor1.010 Microcellular Base Coverage Urban High Speed IMT.TECH - 4.6Mobility TABLE 3 Traffic Channel Link Data Rates

30 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 30 Test environments* IndoorMicrocellularBase coverage urban High speed Mobility classes supported Stationary, pedestrian Stationary, pedestrian, Vehicular (up to 30 km/h) Stationary, pedestrian, vehicular High speed vehicular, vehicular IMT.TECH - 4.6Mobility TABLE 4 Mobility Classes The following classes of mobility are defined: –Stationary: 0 km/h –Pedestrian: > 0 km/h to 10 km/h –Vehicular: 10 to 120 km/h –High speed vehicular: 120 to 350 km/h

31 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 31 Handover Type Interruption Time (ms) Intra-Frequency27.5 Inter-Frequency – within a spectrum band – between spectrum bands IMT.TECH Handover TABLE 5 Handover Interruption Times The handover interruption time is defined as the time duration during which a user terminal cannot exchange user plane packets with any base station. The handover interruption time includes the time required to execute any radio access network procedure, radio resource control signalling protocol, or other message exchanges between the user equipment and the radio access network, as applicable to the candidate RIT or SRIT. For the purposes of determining handover interruption time, interactions with the core network (i.e, network entities beyond the radio access network) are assumed to occur in zero time. It is also assumed that all necessary attributes of the target channel (that is, downlink synchronisation is achieved and uplink access procedures, if applicable, are successfully completed) are known at initiation of the handover from the serving channel to the target channel.

32 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 32 Test environment**Min VoIP capacity (Active users/sector/MHz) Indoor50 Microcellular40 Base coverage urban40 High speed30 IMT.TECH Voip Capacity TABLE 6 VoIP Capacity VoIP capacity was derived assuming a 12.2 kbps codec with a 50% activity factor such that the percentage of users in outage is less than 2% where a user is defined to have experienced a voice outage if less than 98% of the VoIP packets have been delivered successfully to the user within a one way radio access delay bound of 50 ms.

33 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 33 IMT-ADV Evaluation (Temp 90) ITU-R IMT-ADV/3 Report Contents Section 4 - ITU-R Reference documents Section 5 - Describes the evaluation guidelines. Section 6 - Lists the criteria chosen for evaluating the RITs. (Table 6-1) Section 7 - Outlines the procedures and evaluation methodology for evaluating the criteria. Section 8 - Defines the tests environments and selected deployment scenarios for evaluation. Section 9 - Describes a channel model approach for the evaluation. Section 10 - Channel Model Technical references. Technical Guidance Annexes: Annex 1:Test environments and reference channel models Annex 2:Traffic models Annex 3:Link budget template

34 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 34 IMT.EVAL Section 6 Characteristics for Evaluation Table 6-1 Evaluation methods and configurations Characteristic for Evaluation MethodEvaluation methodology / configurations Cell spectral efficiencySimulation (system level)Section 7.1.1; Table 8-2, 8-4 and 8-5 Peak spectral efficiencyAnalyticalSection 7.3.1; Table 8-3 BandwidthInspectionSection Cell edge user spectral efficiencySimulation (system level)Section 7.1.2; Table 8-2, 8-4 and 8-5 Control plane latencyAnalyticalSection 7.3.2; Table 8-2 User plane latencyAnalyticalSection 7.3.3; Table 8-2 MobilitySimulation (system and link level)Section 7.2; Table 8-2 and 8-7 Intra- and inter-frequency handover interruption time AnalyticalSection 7.3.4; Table 8-2 Inter-system handoverInspectionSection VoIP CapacitySimulation (system level)Section 7.1.3; Table 8-2, 8-4 and 8-6 Deployment possible in at least one of the identified IMT bands InspectionSection Channel bandwidth scalabilityInspectionSection Support for a wide range of servicesInspectionSection 7.4.4

35 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 35 IMT.EVAL Section 8 Test Environments & Evaluation Configurations Table 8-2 Baseline evaluation and configuration parameters Deployment scenario for the evaluation process Urban macro-cellUrban micro-cellIndoor hotspotRural macro-cellSuburban macro-cell Base Station (BS) antenna height 25 m, above rooftop10 m, below rooftop6 m, mounted on ceiling 35 m, above rooftop Number of BS antenna elements [1] [1] Up to 8 rx Up to 8 tx Up to 8 rx Up to 8 tx Up to 8 rx Up to 8 tx Up to 8 rx Up to 8 tx Up to 8 rx Up to 8 tx Total BS TX power at antenna feedpoint 46dBm for 10MHz, 49dBm for 20MHz 41 dBm for 10MHz, 44 dBm for 20MHz 24dBm for 40 MHz, 21 dBm for 20 MHz 46dBm for 10MHz, 49dBm for 20MHz User Terminal (UT) power class 24dBm 21dBm24dBm UT antenna system (see the footnote) 1 Up to 2 tx Up to 2 rx Up to 2 tx Up to 2 rx Up to 2 tx Up to 2 rx Up to 2 tx Up to 2 rx Up to 2 tx Up to 2 rx Minimum distance between UT and serving cell [2] [2] >= 25 meters>= 10 meters>= 3 meters>= 35 meters Carrier Frequency (CF) for evaluation (representative of IMT bands) 2GHz2.5 GHz3.4 GHz800 MHzSame as Urban macro-cell Outdoor to Indoor building penetration loss N.A.see Annex 1 Table A1-1 N.A. 20 dB Outdoor to in-car penetration loss 9 dB (LN, σ = 5 dB)N.A. 9 dB (LN, σ = 5 dB)

36 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 36 Other Info

37 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 37 Seoul, Korea Workshop Objectives of the workshop –to provide common understanding of the process for IMT-Advanced standardization including technical requirements and evaluation guidelines. In particular, it will enable those not directly involved with the Circular Letter works to understand procedures better. –to observe current and future development aspects of IMT-Advanced Radio Interface technology by development parties –to exchange the views among possible proponents for consensus building of the possible candidate IMT-Advanced RITS –to share IMT-Advanced market and regulatory aspects for the introduction of the IMT-Advance –to promote more participation from developing countries into the WP5D activities, Ref: TEMP/82E coordinator Dr K. J. Wee

38 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 38 Seoul, Korea Workshop Expected Agenda Topics of the workshop –Procedure and requirements of IMT-Advanced standardization –Possible Candidate IMT-Advanced RITs –Market and Regulatory Aspects –Needs of Developing Countries Ref: TEMP/82E coordinator Dr K. J. Wee

39 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 39 WP5D Meeting Schedule GROUPNo.STARTSTOPPLACE WP 5D128 Jan-081 Feb-08Geneva WP 5D224 Jun-081 Jul-08UAE WP 5D308-Oct-0815-Oct-08Korea WP 5D411 Feb-0918 Feb-09[India] WP 5D510 Jun-0917 Jun-09[Germany] WP 5D614 Oct-0921 Oct-09[China] WP 5D717 Feb-1024 Feb-10[TBD] WP 5D89 Jun-1016 Jun-10[TBD] WP 5D913 Oct-1020 Oct-10[TBD] WP 5D1016 Feb-1123 Feb-11[TBD] WP 5D1115 Jun-1122 Jun-11[TBD] WP 5D1212 Oct-1119 Oct-11[TBD]

40 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 40 SG5 Meeting Schedule GROUPNo.STARTSTOPPLACE SG5 10 Nov-0811 Nov-08Geneva

41 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 41 Study Group 5 Chairs Mr. A. HASHIMOTO Chairman, Study Group 5 Japan - NTT DoCoMo, Inc. Wireless Technology Standardization Dept Mr. T.K.A. ALEGE Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Nigeria - Department of State Services Mr. A. CHANDRA Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 India - Ministry of Communications & IT Mr. J.M. COSTA Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Acting Chairman, Working Party 5A Canada - Nortel Networks Mr. T. EWERS Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Acting Chairman, Working Party 5B Germany - Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Mr. C. GLASS Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Acting Chairman, Working Party 5C US - Department of Commerce – NTIA Mr. A. JAMIESON Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Added Value Applications Ltd. New Zealand Mr. A. KLYUCHAREV Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Russian Federation - General Radio Frequency Centre Mme L. SOUSSI Vice-Présidente, Commission d'études 5 Tunisia - Agence Nationale des Fréquences Mr. L. SUN Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 China - Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Mr. K.-J. WEE Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Korea - Ministry of Information and Communication Radio Research Laboratory

42 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 42 Correspondence Following the Dubai meeting, three new mailing lists are being established: - BWA sharing - Preparation for the IMT- Advanced workshop to be held on 7 October in - Finalization of the Technology Description

43 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 43 IMT- Advanced Group Discussion/Suggestions 2 nd meeting Thursday 10:30am Capitol 7

44 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 44 WG18 Meeting Tuesday 10:30 am Quartz A Joint WG discussion ITU-R WP5D Outcome of Dubai meeting Schedule & Milestones –Plans for correspondence group –Plans for Korea meeting (October 8-15) IEEE PLAN Additional contributions to correspondence or meeting? Plans for correspondence group Plans for Korea meeting (October 8-15)

45 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 45 WG18 Notes The meeting recommenced at 10:30 with the reports from the recent ITU-R meeting in Dubai. The first report port to IEEE TAG on ITU-R 5D meeting #2. Was given by Roger Marks. Roger went through the presentation and there were no questions. Bruce Kraemer presented his report /0752r0, this document was posted into the Grouper Denver folder. The first part was on IMT-TECH. There were some questions raised but a commentator said that this document will be re-edited and revised at the upcoming October 5D meeting. IMT-EVAL is continuing to be fleshed out and to date the presentation gives only the tip of the iceburg. There is a meeting soon that will do further work. There is a chart in the presentation giving the information on the future meeting dates. The next steps will be for all interested 802 WGs to prepare edits and or new inputs for review and approval in a timely manner for the contribution deadline to next meeting, Korea October Some correspondence groups have been formed and should the IEEE take part in the process? The individual groups should examine the steps and then decide their level of participation in the correspondence. Roger Marks indicated that has a discussion group already in place as a correspondence group and that , and others, are welcome to join in. Mike Lynch indicated that he would discuss this with to see if they will join into the correspondence effort. The Chair asked John Notor, the editor for the IMT output documents, to show the latest editing of the IMT802IMT Advanced Technology Proposal Process. After presenting the document there was much discussion on how, in a timely manner, could the approval be obtained so that they could meet the contribution deadlines for the meetings. Some brainstorming on how the documents can be made ready for approval by the EC recognizing that plenary meeting schedule makes an EC approval a very tight action. The Chair thanked Roger and Bruce for their updates. John Notor will update document r1 to 0019r2.

46 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 46 Next Steps Continuation of activity in WG11, WG 18, WG16 Technical steps Assessment of ability to meet baseline requirements Submission to ITU-R Operation in licensed bands Cooperation with WG16 to construct SRIT submission Sanity checks Sufficient interest in WG11 to support any of the above Other, better alternatives Connection to <6GHz PAR Volunteers to participate/lead

47 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 47 What is the potential impact of IMT to ? Worst case scenario - future worldwide wireless system excludes Best case scenario = IMT has zero impact to worldwide wireless system, i.e. IMT is a NOP Threat to is likely zero,what is the opportunity Should we stop this activity as it pertains to ? might be a different story; seems to be more about operators staking out spectrum for the future. Think of what we could do with more spectrum... Extremely loose coupling between IMT and VHTL6 so has no active effort working to meet the IMT requirements we have essentially declared independence from IMT was that intentional or accidental? would review of IMTA requirements influence goals? VOIP Capacity Could we suggest a 64 kbps codec to yield VOIP capacity more in line with capabilities? What is the value of 100MHz channels for VOIP? The IMT effort seems to heavily voice centric - should that be expanded to other areas for system comparisons? e.g. video streams. Final thoughts: Can we write a submission that would lead to a reduction in the VOIP capacity metrics? Get some feedback from m on how they view these requirements (esp. the VOIP capacity number). Where does m need help from , if at all, to construct a more complete submission? How might meet the VOIP requirements as they currently stand? How might compare/ emphasize video delivery? Should continue for inclusion in core specifications or for awareness?

48 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 48 Discussion Data aspects of IMTA services/environments – vs other RIT candidates especially m Has the lack of recognition of in IMT-2000 adversely affected market of Looking backwards, there has been none. What about the future? Would continuing engagement with IMTA help? How valuable is access to IMTA spectrum to ? Best case is actually more bandwidth and a much bigger market opportunity. There may be better ways to obtain spectrum such as 11y mechanisms for use of spectrum with non-exclusive licensing. How quickly/best can we determine complementary fit with 16m? Explore possibility of joint 11/16 teleconference discussion. Obtain/review 16m evaluation of IMT.TECH fit. How to achieve handoff (for example use of.21 mechanisms)? Timing of decision/engineering input – deadline?

49 doc.: IEEE /1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 49 Conclusion Pursue the following topic: How quickly/best can we determine complementary fit with 16m and seriously consider an SRIT submission? Explore possibility of joint 11/16 teleconference discussion. Obtain/review 16m evaluation of IMT.TECH fit. Explore how to achieve handoff (for example use of.21 mechanisms)? Establish timing of decision/engineering input – deadline? Establish Teleconferences to discuss topic prior to September Include IMTA discussion topic in September schedule


Download ppt "Doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1344r0 Submission November 2008 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)Slide 1 IMT-Advanced Opening Report Date: 2008-09-07."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google