22-05-0013-00-0000_PHY_call2_minutes_18Feb05

IEEE P802.22

Wireless RANs

Abstract

(CRS NOTE: Conference Call #1 was abandoned due to attendance issues, making call #2 effectively the 1st call)

The group began the process of developing the PHY-related requirements sections of the overall functional requirements document. There was no formal agenda. The IEEE802.16.3 functional requirements document [1] was decided on as a template for the IEEE802.22 equivalent document. Chapters 5 and 6 were reviewed in detail as being the most relevant to the PHY requirements.

There were 11 participants on the call, which lasted from 8:00 AM to 9:57 AM CST on Feb. 18th, 2005. Call #3 is scheduled for Feb. 25th, 2005, 8:00 AM to 10:00 CST.

Attendance

Steve Kuffner (Motorola, call host)

Peter Murray (Consultant/Motorola)

Sang Gee Kang (ETRI)

Soon Ik Jeon (ETRI)

Myung Sun Song (ETRI)

Gerald Chouinard (CRC)

Greg Buchwald (Motorola)

Carl Stevenson (WK3C)

Ashish Pandharipande (Samsung)

Ron Porat (Cygnus)

Eli Sofer (Runcom)

Next Call

Next call is 8:00 AM CST (9:00 AM Eastern, 6:00 AM Pacific, 4:00 PM Israel, 11:00 PM Korea) on Friday,Feb. 25, 2005.

Minutes

?Since we have limited time, with contributions expected in July 2005, the group decided to use [1] as a starting point for our own functional requirements document. It was agreed that this would provide a

good foundation but required numerous additions and modifications.

?Ref. [1] touches PHY, MAC and system-level topics. Chapters 5 (Performance and Capacity) and 6 (Wireless Media Characteristics) were considered to be the most relevant sections to the PHY group.

o Sec. 5.2 Peak Data Rate – Requires some more thought before defining a number. We can assume e.g. 3 bps/Hz, but what fraction of the 6/7/8MHz bandwidth should be assumed, given

spectral mask constraints are still TBD? Need to decide on maximum modulation rate, BW of

channel, FEC, and other overhead.

o Sec. 5.3 Propagation Delay – We came up with 25 km nominal, 100 km maximum in Monterey.

While focus is low-cost for rural customers, there is some question whether the maximum range

should drive the design. There was brief discussion of cellular vs. large cell deployment.

o Sec. 5.4 Spectral Efficiency – We should put a number here unlike 802.16.3. But what that number should be remains TBD. We discussed the minimum 0.5 bps/Hz in Monterey; spectral

efficiency will vary in the cell, depending on channel and interference.

o Sec. 5.5 Flexible Asymmetry – Keep most of this section as is but need references to TDD and FDD.

o Sec. 5.6 Radio Link Availability –Gerald has looked at F(90,90), so we’re far from the 99.9 or

99.99% mentioned here. Eli thought there was an 802.20 document that might help, and Gerald

was going to look at F(90,99) in his spreadsheet.

o Sec. 5.7 Radio Link Error Performance – Do we stick with the 1E-6 error rate?

o Sec. 5.8 Delay – Eli accepts what is written here though there are no specified values. Latency needs to be defined somewhere. Not resolved.

?We need to add sections that address RF sensing (new 5.10?), DFS (new 5.11?), TPC (new 5.12?). Could group all of these into a new chapter titled “flexible adaptive performance”.

?Chapter 6 – only refers to duplex modes and channelization, which we might absorb in chapter 5. May want to keep FDD/TDD separate like in their chapter 6. Full duplex vs. half duplex issues also need to be addressed. Lastly, channelization is 6, 7 or 8 MHz. No specification for sub-channelization.

?Action items: Steve, Eli and Gerald – Steve to address TDD/FDD and spectral efficiency, Eli radio link error performance/FEC. Extend definition of channelization?

References:

[1] IEEE 802.16.3-00/02r4, Functional Requirements for the 802.16.3 Interoperability Standard, 2000-09-26.