1. IMT-Advanced Opening Report
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
IMT-Advanced Opening Report
Date:
Authors:
Name
Company
Address
Phone
Bruce Kraemer
Marvell
5488 Marvell Ln
Santa Clara, CA
95054 +1 -
321 4 27
4098
marvell
.com
Darwin Engwer
Nortel
Networks
4655 Great America
Pkwy, Santa Clara
CA 95054
408
495
2588
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

2. IEEE 802.11 IMT-Advanced – November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

3. September Goals for November
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

4. November 2008
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 ?)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

5. WG21 Exchanges in Sept November 2008
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

6. WG18 Exchanges in Sept November 2008 November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
WG18 Exchanges in Sept
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

7. Seoul Korea Workshop slide
November 2008
Seoul Korea Workshop slide
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

8. Thursday Update November 2008
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

9. Seoul Korea Workshop slide
November 2008
Seoul Korea Workshop slide
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

10. Connection Status .16 .11 complete Requires completion of TGu .21
November 2008
Connection Status
.16
.11
complete
Requires completion of TGu
.21
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

11. IMT-A Activities Proposal
November 2008
IMT-A Activities Proposal
Agree that WG11 will make no IMT-A RIT submission to WP5D.
Agree that supporting other IEEE 802 WG IMT-A RIT submissions is beneficial
Agree that the MIH approach is the most beneficial activity for WG11 (slide 7).
Agree that the IMT-A Assist WG21 and TGu , as appropriate, to expedite closure of any open items needed for Item #3.
Continue to maintain dialog with, and respond to requests from, other WGs
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

12. November 2008
Project Proposal
Opt 1: Keep ad hoc in place as communication vehicle. Convene ad hoc only as needed, not automatically every session
Opt 2: Disband ad hoc and rely, instead, on liaison reports
Opt 3: Disband ad hoc. Rely on an existing TG, such as TGu for ongoing project support and reporting
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

13. Ongoing WG11 Obligations for IMT
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
Ongoing WG11 Obligations for IMT
Via 18
Create, review, approve WG11 relevant documents to ITU-R WP5D
E.g. M.1801RADIO INTERFACE STANDARDS FOR BROADBAND WIRELESS ACCESS SYSTEMS, INCLUDING MOBILE AND NOMADIC APPLICATIONS, IN THE MOBILE SERVICE OPERATING BELOW 6 GHz”
M “Characteristics of Broadband Local Area Networks”
Participate in Circular letter review process (e.g r5)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

14. Background Information
November 2008
Background Information
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

15. IMT Test Environments • Base coverage urban
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

16. IMT-ADV Schedule November 2008 Dubai Korea
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

17. One Page Summary Most of Circular letter components completed in Dubai
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

18. Workshop Draft November 2008
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

19. July 802.11 Conclusion Pursue the following topic:
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

20. September 802.11 Discussion Premise
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

21. IMT-A/802.11/802.21 – Target Topic Sep 08
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

22. Questions #1 16 has mobile base stations and clients
November 2008
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

23. Question List #2 3GPP has ANDSF which parallels (or uses) 21.
November 2008
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

24. Goal for November Bring to a WG11 vote in November
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

25. IMT-Advanced RIT development process
November 2008
IMT-Advanced RIT development process
Jan 2009
Nov 2009
Jan 2008
Jul 2008
Jan 2009
Nov 2009
Jan 2009
Jul 2010
Jan 2009
Nov 2010
Jan 2009
Jan 2010
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

26. Meeting Report Documents
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

27. Submission Related Documents
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

28. Supported Test Environments
November 2008
Supported Test Environments
At least 1 required to propose candidate
At least 3 required to enter final standardization phase.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

29. Environments November 2008 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.
It’s 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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

30. Service Type Examples - Titles only From M.1822
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

31. Candidate RIT Info IMT.TECH highlights IMT.EVAL highlights
November 2008
Candidate RIT Info
IMT.TECH highlights
IMT.EVAL highlights
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

32. IMT- Advanced IMT.TECH - Radio Requirements
November 2008
IMT- Advanced IMT.TECH - Radio Requirements
4.1 Cell Spectral Efficiency - Table 1
4.2 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 2
4.5.1 Control Plane Latency
<100ms
4.5.2 User Plane Latency
<10 ms
4.6 Mobility up to 350 km/h - Table 3, Table 4
4.7 Handover – Table 5
4.8 VOIP Capacity – Table 6
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

33. IMT.TECH - 4.1 Cell Spectral Efficiency TABLE 1
November 2008
IMT.TECH Cell Spectral Efficiency
TABLE 1
Cell Spectral Efficiency
Test environment **
Downlink (b/s/Hz/cell)
Uplink (b/s/Hz/cell)
Indoor 3
2.25
Microcellular
2.6
1.80
Base coverage urban
2.2
1.4
High speed
1.1
0.7
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

34. IMT.TECH - 4.4 Cell edge user spectral efficiency TABLE 2
November 2008
IMT.TECH Cell edge user spectral efficiency
TABLE 2
Cell Edge User Spectral Efficiency
Test environment* *
Downlink (b/s/Hz)
Uplink (b/s/Hz)
Indoor
0.1
0.07
Microcellular
0.075
0.05
Base coverage urban
0.06
0.03
High speed
0.04
0.015
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

35. Peak Spectral Efficiency
November 2008
Peak Spectral Efficiency
IMT.TECH Peak 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).
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

36. Traffic Channel Link Data Rates
November 2008
IMT.TECH Mobility
TABLE 3
Traffic Channel Link Data Rates
Bits/s/Hz
Speed (km/h)
Indoor
1.0 10
Microcellular
0.75 30
Base Coverage Urban
0.55
120
High Speed
0.25
350
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

37. The following classes of mobility are defined: – Stationary: 0 km/h
November 2008
IMT.TECH Mobility
TABLE 4
Mobility Classes
Test environments*
Indoor
Microcellular
Base coverage urban
High speed
Mobility classes supported
Stationary, pedestrian
Stationary, pedestrian,
Vehicular (up to 30 km/h)
Stationary, pedestrian, vehicular
High speed vehicular, vehicular
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

38. Handover Interruption Times
November 2008
IMT.TECH Handover
TABLE 5
Handover Interruption Times
Handover Type
Interruption Time (ms)
Intra-Frequency
27.5
Inter-Frequency
– within a spectrum band
– between spectrum bands 40 60
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

39. IMT.TECH - 4.8 Voip Capacity
November 2008
IMT.TECH Voip Capacity
TABLE 6
VoIP Capacity
Test environment**
Min VoIP capacity (Active users/sector/MHz)
Indoor 50
Microcellular 40
Base coverage urban
High speed 30
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

40. IMT-ADV Evaluation (Temp 90)
November 2008
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 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 Channel Model Technical references.
Technical Guidance Annexes:
Annex 1: Test environments and reference channel models
Annex 2: Traffic models
Annex 3: Link budget template
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

41. November 2008
IMT.EVAL Section 6 Characteristics for Evaluation Table 6-1 Evaluation methods and configurations
Characteristic for Evaluation
Method
Evaluation methodology / configurations
Cell spectral efficiency
Simulation (system level)
Section 7.1.1; Table 8-2, 8-4 and 8-5
Peak spectral efficiency
Analytical
Section 7.3.1; Table 8-3
Bandwidth
Inspection
Section 7.4.1
Cell edge user spectral efficiency
Section 7.1.2; Table 8-2, 8-4 and 8-5
Control plane latency
Section 7.3.2; Table 8-2
User plane latency
Section 7.3.3; Table 8-2
Mobility
Simulation (system and link level)
Section 7.2; Table 8-2 and 8-7
Intra- and inter-frequency handover interruption time
Section 7.3.4; Table 8-2
Inter-system handover
Section 7.4.3
VoIP Capacity
Section 7.1.3; Table 8-2, 8-4 and 8-6
Deployment possible in at least one of the identified IMT bands
Section 7.4.2
Channel bandwidth scalability
Support for a wide range of services
Section 7.4.4
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

42. November 2008
IMT.EVAL Section 8 Test Environments & Evaluation Configurations Table 8-2 Baseline evaluation and configuration parameters
Deployment scenario for the evaluation process
Urban macro-cell
Urban micro-cell
Indoor hotspot
Rural macro-cell
Suburban macro-cell
Base Station (BS) antenna height
25 m, above rooftop
10 m, below rooftop
6 m, mounted on ceiling
35 m, above rooftop
Number of BS antenna elements[1]
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
User Terminal (UT) power class
24dBm
21dBm
UT antenna system (see the footnote)1
Up to 2 tx
Up to 2 rx
Minimum distance between UT and serving cell[2]
>= 25 meters
>= 10 meters
>= 3 meters
>= 35 meters
Carrier Frequency (CF) for evaluation (representative of IMT bands)
2GHz
2.5 GHz
3.4 GHz
800 MHz
Same as Urban macro-cell
Outdoor to Indoor building penetration loss
N.A.
see Annex 1 Table A1-1
20 dB
Outdoor to in-car penetration loss
9 dB (LN, σ = 5 dB)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

43. November 2008
Other Info
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

44. Seoul, Korea Workshop November 2008 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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

45. Seoul, Korea Workshop Expected Agenda Topics of the workshop
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

46. WP5D Meeting Schedule November 2008 GROUP No. START STOP PLACE WP 5D 1
28 Jan-08
1 Feb-08
Geneva 2
24 Jun-08
1 Jul-08
UAE 3
08-Oct-08
15-Oct-08
Korea 4
11 Feb-09
18 Feb-09
[India] 5
10 Jun-09
17 Jun-09
[Germany] 6
14 Oct-09
21 Oct-09
[China] 7
17 Feb-10
24 Feb-10
[TBD] 8
9 Jun-10
16 Jun-10 9
13 Oct-10
20 Oct-10 10
16 Feb-11
23 Feb-11 11
15 Jun-11
22 Jun-11 12
12 Oct-11
19 Oct-11
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

47. SG5 Meeting Schedule November 2008 GROUP No. START STOP PLACE SG5
Geneva
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

48. Study Group 5 Chairs November 2008 Mr. C. GLASS 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
India - Ministry of Communications & IT
Mr. J.M. COSTA
Acting Chairman, Working Party 5A
Canada - Nortel Networks
Mr. T. EWERS
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
Added Value Applications Ltd.
New Zealand
Mr. A. KLYUCHAREV
Russian Federation - General Radio Frequency Centre
Mme L. SOUSSI
Vice-Présidente, Commission d'études 5
Tunisia - Agence Nationale des Fréquences
Mr. L. SUN
China - Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Mr. K.-J. WEE
Korea - Ministry of Information and Communication
Radio Research Laboratory
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

49. November 2008
Correspondence
Following the Dubai meeting, three new mailing lists are being established:
- BWA sharing studies
- Preparation for the IMT-Advanced workshop to be held on 7 October in Seoul.
- Finalization of the Technology Description Template
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

50. IMT- Advanced Group Discussion/Suggestions
November 2008
IMT- Advanced Group Discussion/Suggestions
2nd meeting Thursday 10:30am Capitol 7
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

51. WG18 Meeting Tuesday 10:30 am Quartz A Joint WG discussion ITU-R WP5D
November 2008
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

52. November 2008
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 8-15.
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.
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

53. Next Steps Continuation of activity in WG11, WG 18, WG16
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

54. November 2008 November 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-08/1344r2
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

55. November 2008
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?
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

56. Conclusion Pursue the following topic:
November 2008
doc.: IEEE /1344r2
November 2008
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
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)