ECCG conference call: Agenda Item 3

[Michael Youssefmir <mike@ARRAYCOMM.COM>]

Folks,

Here are the slides for discussion around agenda item #3 on
today's evaluation call.

Mike

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khan, Farooq (Farooq)
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:09 AM
> To: stds-80220-eval-criteria@ieee.org
> Subject: ECCG conference call, Tuesday March 09, 6-8pm EST
>
>
> Tuesday March 09, 6-8pm EST
> Bridge Number: +1-800-450-3848 or 630-979-6500
> Conference Code: 180220
>
> AGENDA:
> 1- Phased Approach:
> 2- Link budget Template
> 3- Simulation of various channel bandwidths
>
>
> re: item-1, Mike Youssefmir will send out a table capturing details of Phase 1 as were discussed over the last call.
>
> re: item-2, Anna Tee would update the Link budget template with the various alternative values proposed for different link budget parameters.
>
> re: item-3, I have attached below an email summarizing the discussion from January 27, 2004 ECCG call.
>
> Regards,
> Farooq
>
>

Content-Description: stds-80220-eval-criteria: Consensus on "simulation of various channel bandwidths"
> From: "Khan, Farooq (Farooq)" <fkhan1@lucent.com>
> To: "'stds-80220-eval-criteria@ieee.org'"
>          <stds-80220-eval-criteria@ieee.org>
> Subject: stds-80220-eval-criteria: Consensus on "simulation of various cha
>         nnel bandwidths"
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:01:35 -0500
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
>
>
> The evaluation group discussed 2 options on "simulation of various channel bandwidths" (for details, please  see the previous email on this subject) on today's conference call. A consensus was reached on adopting a modified option B as the starting point . The agreed text to be used as baseline for any further discussions on this topic is provided at the end of this message.
>
> The issue that need to be further addressed is how the spectral mask
> requirement would apply to the spectrum allocation used for the evaluation process.
> One possibility is that a proposal specify both its channel bandwidth and its "necessary bandwidth"  and justify the ability to support their specified number of carriers within the spectrum allocation specified. In this case, proposals with multiple carriers within the spectrum allocation used for the evaluation process may have to simulate the inter-carrier leakage in order to justify the number of carriers used within the allocation.
>
> Please provide your comments/suggestion on the text and also the spectral
> mask issue. Please also provide input if you have preference for a
> particular value for the spectrum allocation used for the evaluation process.
>
> Joanne, thanks for the help in developing the text.
>
> Regards,
> =Farooq=
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Specify a small number (preferably one) of spectrum allocations* (over
> which the results are quoted). The individual technology proposals may then
> split the total spectrum into a given number of carriers and specify
> their reuse factor and channel bandwidth**. For example, if XMHz (TBD) is
> specified as the spectrum allocation to be used for the evaluation process,
> then individual technology proposals can perform simulations and then scale the
> simulation output data to that spectrum allocation (XMHz). For proposals
> with channel bandwidths that are smaller than that spectrum allocation, it
> would also be possible to simulate multiple carriers per sector and to
> collect data from all the carriers that can be supported within that spectrum
> allocation.
>
> *See definition  of spectrum allocation from the Terminology Annex of
> Requirements Document.
> **See definition of channel bandwidths from the Terminology Annex of
> Requirements Document.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------

Bandwidth Allocation Eval Call 030904.ppt