1
Project
IEEE 802.20 Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/>
Title
Draft Meeting Minutes, 802.20 Plenary Meeting - Session #13, Atlanta, GA, March
14-18, 2005
Date
Submitted
2005-3-14
Source(s)
Rao Yallapragada
QUALCOMM, Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA, 92121
Re:
802.20 Session#13
Abstract
Draft of the Minutes of the Session #13;
Purpose
Minutes of the Session.
Voice: +1 858 658 4540
Fax: +1 858 651 2880
Email: rao@qualcomm.com
Release
This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.20 Working Group. It is offered as a basis for
discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this
document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right
to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this
contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in
the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution;
and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE
Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made
public by IEEE 802.20.
Patent
Policy
The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board Operations Manual <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3> and in Understanding
Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/guide.html>.
Notice
2
Draft - Meeting Minutes of the 802.20 Session #13
March 14-17, 2005
Atlanta, GA
Rao Yallapragada
Secretary
The 13th session of 802.20 was held at the March 2005 Plenary meeting of IEEE 802 in
Atlanta, GA.
The session began with a Joint Opening meeting at 11:00 am on March 14, 2005.
Contributions and WG documents referenced in these minutes may be found at the
802.20 website, http://www.ieee802.org/20/
See Appendix A for the attendance and participation credit list.
Minutes of 802.20 Monday March 14, 2005
Meeting started at 1:30 pm.
Chair opened the meeting presenting the logistics for the current session.
Chair explained the Company Affiliation and Sign in procedure.
Chair called the WG members to sign in.
Chair opened the meeting for 802.20 WG to review and discuss the following:
-
-
Objectives of the meeting
Copy Right Rules
Logistics of the session
IEEE 802 meeting conduct and WG policies and procedures
Voting Rights
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards
Logistics for the session
Next Meeting information
Chair proposed the meeting agenda. The chair’s opening slides including the proposed
agenda are contained in document C802.20.05-24.
Based on the inputs and comments from the members, modifications made to the agenda
(Appendix B).
Motion #1
Motion to approve the Agenda (Appendix B)
Mover: Joanne Wilson
Second: Lynne Dorward
Time: 2:00 pm
Motion passes without any objections
3
Motion #2
Motion to approve meeting minutes of November 2004 and January 2005 sessions
Mover: Mark Klerer
Second: Dennis Bravin
Time: 2:02 pm
Motion passes without any objections
Presentation by Anna Tee on “Evaluation Criteria and Traffic Models Status
Update” (C802.20-05-14r1)
Chair presented an update of the upcoming sessions of 802.20 (Appendix C)
Chair sought inputs from the group on where the meetings should be held.
Straw Poll
Istanbul: 20
China: 16
Seoul: 1
Other Europe Location (TBD): 33
Break: 3:05 pm
Resume: 3:35 pm
802.18 discussion of Ofcom’s views
Presentation by Jim Rabb on “Spectrum Framework Review”
Also, Mike Lynch, Chair of 802.18 commented on the information previously sent to the
802.20 reflector.
Jim Rabb will send the three main questions and proposed answers
Mike Lynch made a request to have a Liaison person from 802.20 to 802.18
Comments were made to allocate a 2 hour slot to discuss the issues raised by the 802.18
WG in regards to liaison activity from 802.20
The chair requested volunteers for an ad-hoc group to discuss and make a report on the
issues raised by the 802.18 group.
Time: 4:35 pm
Meeting recessed for the day.
4
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Meeting began at 8:00 am
The Chair reviewed the agenda (Appendix B).
Presentation by Qiang Guo on “Current Status of 802.20 Channel Models”
(C802.20-05-13)
Discussion followed:
Presentation by Anna Tee on “Comments on new proposal for 802.20 Channel
Models” (C802.20-05-xx)
Following that, the Chair asked for attention to the following resolution presented by
Qiang Guo
Proposed Resolution from January Meeting:
•
•
SISO systems shall use the ITU model in simulations
Non-SISO systems will use a correlation matrix approach in simulations
– The correlation matrices will be only antenna system dependent
– The correlation matrices [shall][may] be generated by using the SCM to
generate the (insert name here) correlation coefficients
– The matrices used shall be submitted as part of the simulation report
Chair requested for a Status poll to whether consider the above mentioned proposed
resolution:
Straw Poll:
Results
Yes: 22
No: 1
Motion #3:
To approve the above mentioned resolution to adopting SISO systems for ITU models in
simulations and Non-SISO systems to use a correlation matrix approach to simulations
Mover: Joanne Wilson
Second: David James
Results:
In favor: 33
Opposed: 1
Time: 8:45 am
Motion passes
5
Motion #4
Move to approve Section 1 of the Channel Models Document
Mover: Joanne Wilson
Second: Kazuhiro Murakami
Results:
In favor: 15
Opposed: None
Time: 8:52 am
Motion passes
Motion #5
Motion to approve Section 2.1 & 2.2
Mover: David James
Second: Joanne Wilson
Discussion followed.
Friendly amendment: to strike away at and add for
And add combinations
Friendly amendment accepted
Results:
In favor: 41
Opposed: None
Time: 9:20 am
Motion passes
Break: 9:20 am
Resume: 10:15 am
Resumed the Review of Channel Models Document: Section 2.3
Discussion followed. Based on the comments and inputs from the group, Dan Gal
modified the text for Section 2.3.
6
Motion #6
Motion to approve the modified Section 2.3
Mover: Dan Gal
Second: Joanne Wilson
Discussion followed.
Approved without any objections
Time: 10:45 am
Motion passes
Review of Section 2.4 of Channel Models Document
Discussion followed.
Based on the comments and inputs from the group, the Channel Models Editor modified
the text of the section.
It was pointed out change the phrase “Angle Spread” to “Angular Spread” throughout the
document
Motion #7
Motion to approve the modified Section 2.4 of Channel Models Document
Mover: Dan Gal
Second: David James
Approved without any objections
Time: 11:00 am
Motion passes
Review of Section 2.5 of Channel Models Document
Discussion followed. After a long debate, the group to the conclusion that the
fundamental issue that was raised this morning needs to be resolved, i.e., how do we
define and we generate the correlation matrices.
Also, remains is to decide the question of mandating whether the correlation matrices
“shall” be generated or “may” be generated using SCM to generate the correlation
coefficients.
Break: 11:50 am
Resume: 1:05 pm
Chair brought the attention to the core issues of channel models document: Definition
and Generation of correlation matrices
7
The following paper is distributed to the reflector:
A Stochastic MIMO Radio Channel ModelWith Experimental Validation
By Jean Philippe Kermoal, Laurent Schumacher, Member, IEEE, Klaus Ingemann Pedersen,
Member, IEEE, Preben Elgaard Mogensen, Member, IEEE, and Frank Frederiksen
Published in “IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS,
VOL. 20, NO. 6, AUGUST 2002 1211”
Source: www.ist-imetra.org/index_papers.html
Discussion on Table.2.1: Summary of Link Level Channel Model Parameters
Based on the inputs, the parameters of the table were modified
Table 3.1: Environment parameters (Channel Models Document Version 7)
Straw Poll:
In favor of keeping lognormal shadowing standard deviation in table 3.1 at 8 dB: 2
In favor of having lognormal shadowing standard deviation in table 3.1 at 10 dB: 27
Motion #8
Motion to adopt a value of 10 dB for lognormal shadowing standard deviation in Table
3.1 (version 7)
Mover: Jim Ragsdale
Second: Ayman Naguib
Debate followed
Results:
In favor: 42
Opposed: 2
Time: 3:07 pm
Motion passes
Break: 3:08 pm
Resume: 3:40 pm
Review and adoption of different sections of the Channel Models Document continued
As the text in the channel model document was modified, it was clear that Section 1
needed further cleanup to reflect the current makeup of the document.
The editor made changes to Section 1 based on the input from the members of the group.
8
Motion #9
Motion to adopt the modified Section 1
Mover: Joanne Wilson
Second: Mark Klerer
Discussion followed
Results:
In favor: 40
Opposed: 0
Time: 4:15 pm
Motion passes
Review continued
Time: 4:57 pm
Chair reviewed the agenda for the remainder of the session.
Time: 5:05 pm
Meeting recessed for the day
9
Wednesday, March 16, 2004
Meeting began at 8:00 am.
Chair reviewed the agenda for the day.
Presentation by Jim Tomcik on “QoS for Evaluation Criteria Gaming Models”
(C802.20-05/20)
Presentation by Anna Tee on “Proposed Text for Fairness/QoS criteria for 802.20
proposal evaluation” (C802.20-05/22)
Presentation by Anna Tee on “Proposed Text for VoIP traffic model for 802.20
proposal evaluation” (C802.20-05/23)
Break: 10:20 am
Resume: 11:00 am
Chair discussed the three presentations that were presented this morning.
Chair suggested including the text on QoS and Fairness criteria into Evaluation Criteria
document in some format. If necessary, it can be included as in a separate chapter and
then work to appropriately fold the material into the document
Chair also requested for volunteers to form an Ad-hoc group to look into formulating a
generic model for evaluating VoIP performance.
Presentation by Anna Tee on “Link Budget Evaluation” (C802.20-05/18)
Straw poll
To consider Option 4 for Link Budget in EC Document
Results:
In favor: 37
Motion#10
To adopt Option 4 for the Link Budget for Evaluation Criteria Document
Mover: David James
Second: Joanne Wilson
Debate followed
Friendly amendment by Jim Ragsdale to modify the text (from should to shall)
Friendly amendment accepted
10
In favor: 47
Opposed: 1
Time: 12:10 pm
Motion Passes
Lunch Break: 12:11 pm
Resume: 1:00 pm
Presentation by Arak Sutivong on “System Level Calibration Method” (C802.2004/83r5)
Discussion Followed. Based on the comments and inputs from the group, several action
items were generated for further work on the document.
Presentation by David Huo on “Explanation of Random Fixed MS Locations for
System Level Calibration” (C802.20-05/16)
Discussion followed
Break: 3:05 pm
Resume: 3:35 pm
Presentation by David Huo on “Issues on Power Settings for System Level
Calibration” (C802.20-05/17)
Discussion followed.
Presentation by Anna Tee on “Performance degradation caused by Adjacent
Channel Interference-Simulation Results” (C802.20-05/21)
Straw Poll
In support of Option 2:


Include the following statement in Section 16 of the Evaluation Criteria
Document V.14:In addition, the performance degradation associated with the adjacent channel
interference needs to be stated and included in the system level evaluation.
Results:
In favor: 1 vote
Presentation by David Huo on “Clarification on the Wrap-Around Hexagon
Network Structure” (C802.20-05/15)
11
Straw Poll:
In support of replacing the current text in Appendix B by the text presented in C802.2005/15.doc
Results:
In favor: 27
Opposed: 0
Motion #11
Move to adopt the text presented in C802.20-05/15.doc to replace the current text in
Appendix B of Evaluation Criteria Document
Mover: Dan Gal
Second: David James
Results:
In favor: 37
Opposed: 0
Time: 5:20 PM
Motion Passes
Chair reviewed the remainder of the agenda. Based on the items covered so far and the
comments from the group modified the agenda for the remainder of the session
(Appendix D)
Time: 5:28 pm
Meeting recessed for the day.
12
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Meeting began at 8:00 am.
Chair reviewed the agenda for the remainder of the session given in Appendix D
Presentation by Dan Gal on “802.20 Technology Selection Process” (C802.2004/72r4)
Discussion followed
Following key comments are noted:
 that the merge process in current version is not clear.
 There should be chances for the proposal(s) that fails to be accepted
during the selection process be considered to be merged to the winning
proposal(s).
 There should be a good solution to avoid the top two proposals remained
falling into the deadlock state.
Dan Gal will continue to draft TSP v.5 for discussion
Presentation by Joanne Wilson on “Comments on 802.20 Technology Selection
Process” (C802.20-05/11)
Discussion followed
Break: 10:00 am
Resume: 10:30 am
Presentation by Joanne Wilson on “Proposal for the 802.20 Technology Selection
Process (TSP)” (C802.20-05/12)
Discussion followed
Chair asked if there are objections to postpone the presentation on C802.20-05/19 after
lunch.
No objections were noted.
Lunch Break: 11:53 am
Resume: 1:00 pm
Presentation by Joanne Wilson on “Proposed Compliance Table for the 802.20
Technology Selection Process (TSP)” (C802.20-05/19)
Discussion followed
13
Presentation by Rajat Prakash on “Mobility Modeling Update – Further Details”
(C802.20-05/10r2An)
Discussion followed
Based on comments and feedback from the group, several action items were generated.
The author and presenter of the above document captured the action items and listed them
in the update to the C802.20-05/10r2 document.
Straw Poll:
Determine if there are any objections to include Option 2 into the document.
No objections were raised
Motion #12
Move to delete Section 5.4 (Mobility Modeling)
Mover: Mike Youseffmir
Second: Mark Klerer
Debate followed
Second withdrawn
Mover withdrawn
Motion withdrawn
Time: 2:40 pm
Straw Poll:
Poll to find out if there are any objections to include the material presented in Option 2
for C802.20-05-10r2 in the Section 5.4 Evaluation Criteria Document Version 15 as
Option 1
No objections raised
Time: 2:45pm
Chair presented the summary of the current status and further steps on Evaluation Criteria
and Channel Models documents (Appendix E)
There was a suggestion to start putting work back on the email reflector
The channel models editor reviewed the version 8 of Channel Models document.
He particularly talked about the appropriate restructuring and editing of the Channel
Models document
Section 3 titled to be changed to: MIMO Channel Models for Link-Level Simulations
14
Based on comments, the editor further modified the Channel Models Document.
The modified document will be posted as Version 8 r1.
Break: 3:20 pm
Resume: 3:50 pm
Chair presented a summary of Next Steps on “Technology Selection Process” (Appendix
E)
Chair requested for further inputs from the group.
It was agreed by all that Mark Klerer would create a merged version of the two
contributions, Mark create a “1.0 version” of the Technology Selection Process document
for review by the group. The group will use this version for further progress toward a
consensus agreement.
Discussion followed.
Motion #13
Move to empower the Working Group to Vote on Approvals of Section and or Complete
Channel Models, Evaluation Criteria and TSP Documents at the May Interim even
without a 50% of the voters in attendance
Mover: Mark Klerer
Second: Joanne Wilson
Debate followed.
The chair told the group that any empowerment motion must be very specific. The chair
expressed concern that the current 802 P&P is not clear on whether empowerment
motions are allowed. However, specific empowerment motions have been used in other
groups. Therefore the chair allowed the motion and debate to proceed.
Results:
In favor: 11
Against: 38
Abstain: None
Time: 4:30 pm
Motion fails
15
Motion #14
Move to empower the Working Group to Vote on Approvals of Sections of Channel
Models, Evaluation Criteria and TSP Documents at the May Interim even without a 50%
of the voters in attendance. (Note: the Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria Complete
Documents requires a Final Overall 75% approval of TSP requires a overall 50%)
Mover: Mark Klerer
Second: Joanne Wilson
Debate followed:
Results:
In favor: 10
Against: 36
Abstain: 1
Time: 4:40 pm
Motion fails
Roll Call Vote #1: A roll call vote was conducted based on a request from Mark Klerer
Results:
In favor: 10
Against: 36
Abstain: 5
Motion fails
Appendix F – Results of the Roll Call Vote #1
Motion #15
Move to adjourn
Mover: Dan Gal
Second: Rao Yallapragada
Motion passes by unanimous consent.
Time: 5:05 pm
Session #13 is adjourned
16
Appendix A: Attendance List
Last Name
Austin
Bernstein
Tibor
Bravin
Bussey
Canchi
First Name
Mark
Jeffrey
Boros
Nancy
Chris
Radhakrishna
Carneiro
Carson
Castell
Chickneas
Edson
Peter
Harold P.
Jim
Chun
Davis
Dodd
Dorward
Epstein
Ferguson
Gal
Garcia-Alis
Giles
Kue
Chantal
Donald
Lynne
Mark
Alistair
Dan
Daniel
Arthur
Gomes
Gorodetsky
Guo
Huo
James
Jones
Khademi
Khatibi
Kimura
Kitahara
Klerer
Kukshya
Lalaguna
Lawrence
Eladio
Svetlana
Qiang
David
David S.
Dennis
Majid
Farrokh
Shigeru
Minako
Mark
Vikas
Pablo
Lisa
Leon
Loh
Martynov
Martynov
Wing Seng
Lee Ying
Irina
Michael
McMillan
Miura
Miyazono
Monkavent
Murakami
Naguib
Naidu
Novick
Oguma
Donald
Akira
Max
Nicolas
Kazuhiro
Ayman
Mullaguru
Fred
Hiroshi
Company/Organization
OFCOM
TMG
ArrayComm
Consultant
Bussey Consulting
Kyocera
Edmais Computer
Services (Brazilian
Comp.)
Qualcomm
Bussey Consulting
Consultant/Lucent
NASA Glenn Research
Center
Industry Canada
Case Communications
Ladcomm
Qualcomm
Selbourne Associates
Lucent
Univ. of Strathclyde
US Global Telecom
Double E Enterprises
(Brazilian companies int)
Gorodetsky Consulting
Motorola
Lucent
Oak Global BV
Taliesen Consulting
Khademi Consulting
Qualcomm
Kyocera
Kyocera
Flarion Technologies
HRL Labs
MedStar
CTCI Group
Institute Infocomm
Research Singapore
Panasonic Singapore
Belgud International
Belgud International
Advanced Network
Technical Solutions
Consultant
Qualcomm
NIST
Kyocera
Qualcomm
Qualcomm
Bussey Consulting
Institute of Miyagi Pref.
Attendee
A
A
A
A
A
A
Mar 05
Participation
Credit
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
A
A
A
A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
A
A
A
A
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
17
Ping
Pirhonen
Polcari
Polsgrove
Prakash
Preece
Ragsdale
Roy
Shields
Shively
Springer
Stafford
Sutivong
Tee
Toro
Trick
Luo
Riku
Amy
Jim
Rajat
Rob
James
Pulakesh
Judy
David
Warren
Rob
Arak
Lai-King
Anna
Steven
John
Upton
Valls
Vivanco
Wilson
Wu
Yaghoobi
Yallapragada
Youssefmir
Yuda
Yuza
Jerry
Juan Carlos
Silvia
Joanne
Gang
Hassan
Rao
Michael
Tetsuya
Masaaki
Panasonic Singapore
Nokia
Bussey Consulting
JKB Global
Qualcomm
BCSI
Ericsson
ArrayComm
Ladcomm Corp.
Cingular Wireless
Springer Associates
NIST/OLES
Qualcomm
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Samsung
Sane Solutions LLC
Bussey Consulting
JUpton
Consulting;Qualcomm
TMG Group
TMG
ArrayComm
NTT DoCoMo USA Labs
Intel
Qualcomm
ArrayComm
KTRC
NEC
A
A
A
Yes
Yes
Yes
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
18
Appendix B: Approved Detailed Agenda on March 14, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Proposed Detail Agenda – March 2005 Plenary approved 3/14
Monday, March 14, 2005 11:00AM – 12:00PM Centennial I-IV
IEEE 802 Opening Plenary (Lunch 12:00-1:30pm)
Monday, March 14, 2005 1:30PM – 5:00PM Regency VI (Break 3:00 – 3:30PM)
Opening Session of 802.20
1:30-2:30pm
- IEEE IPR rules, meeting conduct &
- Session Logistics
- Review and Approve 802.20 Agenda
- Review and approve Nov. 04 & Jan.05 Minutes
- Evaluation Criteria & Channel Models Closure Process
- Next Meetings
Status Reports:
- Evaluation Criteria & Traffic Models (Anna Tee)
2:30-3:00pm
Review Other WGs Activities
3:30-5:00pm
- Other WGs PARS
- 802.18 Discussion of Ofcom comments
Monday, Mar. 14, 2005 6:30PM - 9:30PM (optional Ad-Hocs & Tutorials)
C802.20-05/24r1
C802.20-05/14r1
Tuesday, Mar. 15, 2005 8:00AM - 12:00PM Regency VI (Break 10:00 – 10:30AM)
Channel Models Status and Contributions
- Status of Channel Models Document (Qiang Guo)
Channel Models Document - Review and Voting
8:00am- 9:00am
9:00am-12:00pm
Tuesday, Mar. 15, 2005 1:00PM – 5:00PM Regency VI (Break 3:00 – 3:30PM)
Channel Models Document - Review and Voting
1:00pm-5:00pm
Tuesday, Mar. 15, 2004 6:30PM - 10:30PM (optional Ad-Hocs & Tutorials)
C802.20-05/13
19
Wednesday, Mar. 16, 2005 8:00AM - 12:00PM Regency VI (Break 10:00 – 10:30AM)
Evaluation Criteria & Traffic Models Contributions
- QoS and Gaming (Jim Tomcik)
- Proposed Text Fairness/QoS Criteria (Anne Tee)
- VoIP Traffic Model text (Anne Tee)
- Link Budget Evaluation r1 (Anna Tee)
- System Level Calibration Method (Anna T/ Arak S/D. Huo)
- Random Fixed MS Locations – Sys. Calibr. (D. Huo)
- Issues on Power Settings –Sys. Calibr. (D. Huo)
8:00am- 8:30am
8:30am-9:00am
9:00am-9:30am
9:30am-10:00am
10:30-11:00am
11:00- 11:30am
11:30- 12:00pm
C802.20-05/20
C802.20-05/22
C802.20-05/23
C802.20-05/18
C802.20-04/83r5
C802.20-05/16
C802.20-05/17
Wednesday, Mar. 16, 2005 1:00PM - 5:00PM Regency VI (Break 3:00 – 3:30PM)
- Degradation - - Adjacent Channel Interference (Anna T.)
- Wrap Around Hexagon Network Structure (D. Huo)
- Mobility Modeling- Further Details (R. Prakash)
Evaluation Criteria & Traffic Models Review & Voting
1:00pm- 1:30pm
1:30pm- 2:15pm
2:15pm- 3:00pm
3:30pm – 5:00pm
C802.20-05/21
C802.20-05/15
C802.20-05/10r2
802 Social – Grand Hall
Thursday, Mar. 17, 2005 8:00AM - 12:00PM Regency VI (Break 10:00 – 10:30AM)
Technology Selection Process (D. Gal)
Comments of TSP (Joanne Wilson)
Proposal for 802.20 TSP (Joanne Wilson)
Proposed TSP Compliance Table (J. Wilson & M Klerer)
8:00am – 9:00am
9:30am-10:00am
10:30am- 11:30am
11:30am-12:00pm
Thursday, Mar. 17, 2005 1:30PM - 5:00PM Regency VI (Break 3:00 – 3:30PM)
Evaluation Criteria & Traffic Models Review & Voting
TSP Further Review
New Business
Next Meeting Planning
Close and Adjourn
1:30pm-3:00pm
3:30pm-4:30pm
4:30pm-4:40pm
4:40pm-4:50pm
4:50pm-5:00pm
C802.20-04/72r4
C802.20-05/11
C802.20-05/12
C802.20-05/19
20
Appendix C: Next Meetings – 802.20
Next Meetings – 802.20
May Interim - - Cairns, Australia for May 16 -20, 2005
Link is now up and available for May Interim session in Cairns, Australia for May 16 -20,
2005 . Please go to
https://secure.tourhosts.com/ei/rs.esp?&id=388&scriptid=LOGIN
We are in a state of the art convention facility in Cairns and spread out over several
nearby hotels for accommodations. Hotel information and distances are on the sign-up
page. There is also included information on tour packages for the Great Barrier Reef.
Please be sure to read and understand the cancellation policy as it is a little different
than US meetings. It is also important you register before April 4 to get the early bird
rate. You will be reminded frequently. During the month of April the rate will be
US$150 additional and during May and on site it will be US$300 more! Book now
before you forget and get the US$500 early bird rate.
July Plenary - - July 18-21 in San Francisco
September Interim - - Sept. 19-22 in Orange Co. CA
November Plenary - - Nov. 14-18 in Vancouver Canada
January Interim - - Jan. 16-20 in Hawaii
Inputs needed for May/Sept Interim outside US:
Instanbul
______
China
______
Seoul
______
Other Europe TBD ______
21
Appendix D: Approved Modified Agenda on 3/16/05 at 5:25 pm
Wednesday, Mar. 16, 2005 8:00AM - 12:00PM Regency VI (Break 10:00 – 10:30AM)
Evaluation Criteria & Traffic Models Contributions
- QoS and Gaming (Jim Tomcik)
- Proposed Text Fairness/QoS Criteria (Anne Tee)
- VoIP Traffic Model text (Anne Tee)
- Link Budget Evaluation r1 (Anna Tee)
- System Level Calibration Method (Anna T/ Arak S/D. Huo)
- Random Fixed MS Locations – Sys. Calibr. (D. Huo)
- Issues on Power Settings –Sys. Calibr. (D. Huo)
8:00am- 8:30am
8:30am-9:00am
9:00am-9:30am
9:30am-10:00am
10:30-11:00am
11:00- 11:30am
11:30- 12:00pm
C802.20-05/20
C802.20-05/22
C802.20-05/23
C802.20-05/18
C802.20-04/83r5
C802.20-05/16
C802.20-05/17
Wednesday, Mar. 16, 2005 1:00PM - 5:00PM Regency VI (Break 3:00 – 3:30PM)
- Degradation - - Adjacent Channel Interference (Anna T.) 1:00pm- 1:30pm
- Wrap Around Hexagon Network Structure (D. Huo)
1:30pm- 2:15pm
Evaluation Criteria & Traffic Models Review & Voting
2:15pm- 3:00pm
C802.20-05/21
C802.20-05/15
802 Social – Grand Hall
Thursday, Mar. 17, 2005 8:00AM - 12:00PM Regency VI (Break 10:00 – 10:30AM)
Technology Selection Process (D. Gal)
Comments of TSP (Joanne Wilson)
Proposal for 802.20 TSP (Joanne Wilson)
Proposed TSP Compliance Table (J. Wilson & M Klerer)
8:00am – 9:00am
9:30am-10:00am
10:30am- 11:30am
11:30am-12:00pm
C802.20-04/72r4
C802.20-05/11
C802.20-05/12
C802.20-05/19
Thursday, Mar. 17, 2005 1:30PM - 5:00PM Regency VI (Break 3:00 – 3:30PM)
- Mobility Modeling- Further Details (R. Prakash)
Evaluation Criteria & Traffic Models Review Next Steps
Channel Models Further Review (Ver. 8 Major Edits)
TSP Further Review
New Business
Next Meeting Planning
Close and Adjourn
1:30pm-3:00pm
3:30pm-4:30pm
4:30pm-4:40pm
4:40pm-4:50pm
4:50pm-5:00pm
C802.20-05/10r2
22
Appendix E: Summary of Current Status and Further Steps on a)
Technology Selection Process, b) Evaluation Criteria and c) Channel
Models Document
Technology Selection Next Steps
•
Create a Version 1.0 draft - - Note The Group Chose 2)
•
Alternatives
•
Choose one of Contributions as a Baseline
and add other inputs/option and note missing sections
•
Merge the Two Contributions and create options in
sections
where there is a difference- - Mark volunteers to try a
merger send out
3) Chair Chooses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appoint an Editor of the document - Create additional Drop Box area for TSP
Add Second Table regarding Evaluation Criteria from C802.20-05/19 to
the Evaluation Criteria doc as an Appendix
All- Review for final approval the first table from C802.20-05/19 regarding
Compliance to SRD
Compliant and Non-Compliant Proposals
FDD and TDD Proposals
Phases of EV and how it works in the process
Consensus and adoption of an Agreed TSP
Chair will obtain additional inputs on questions from .11n Chair and
refer members to 802.21 TSP Doc.
23
Appendix F: Roll Call Vote #1
APPENDIX F Motion: Empower the Working Group to Vote on Approvals of Sections of Channel
Models, Evaluation Criteria and TSP documents at the May Interim even without 50% of the
voters in attendance. (Note: the Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria Complete Documents
requires a Final Overall 75%; approval of TSP requires a overall 50%
Mover: Mark Klerer Second: Joanne Wilson Results: Yes 10, No 36, Abstain 5
Last Name
First Name
Mar Voters
Yes
No
Ahn
Jae Young
M
Alder
Larry
M
Bajaj
Rashmi
M
Barriac
Gwen
M
Baum
Kevin
M
Bravin
Nancy
M
X
Bernstein
Jeffrey
M
X
Bussey
Chris
M
X
Canchi
Radhakrishna
M
X
Carneiro
Edson
M
X
Carson
Peter
M
Castell
Harold P.
M
X
Chauvin
Todd
M
Chen
Nongji
M
Chickneas
Jim
M
X
Chindapol
Aik
M
Cho
Juphil
M
Choi
Hyoung-Jin
M
Choo Eng
Yap
M
Cleveland
Joseph
M
Crowley
Steven
M
Davis
Chantal
M
Dodd
Donald
M
X
Dorward
Lynne
M
X
Eilts
Henry
M
Entzminger
Lindell
M
Epstein
Mark
M
X
Ferguson
Alistair
M
X
Gal
Dan
M
X
Ganti
Hari
M
Garcia-Alis
Daniel
M
X
Giles
Arthur
M
X
Gomes
Eladio
M
X
Gorodetsky
Svetlana
M
X
Guo
Qiang
M
Hafid
Abdelhakim
M
Han
Youngnam
M
Hou
Victor
M
Humbert
John
M
Huo
David
M
Ibbetson
Luke
M
Imamura
Daichi
M
Abstain
X
24
James
Jeong
Jones
Kakura
Khademi
Khan
Khatibi
Kim
Kim
Kimura
Kitahara
Kitamura
Klerer
Knisely
Knowles
Kolze
Kuroda
Kwon
Laihonen
Lalaguna
Landon
Lawrence
Lee
Lee
Lee
Love
Martynov
Martynov
McGinnis
McMillan
Miyazono
Mollenauer
Murakami
Naguib
Naidu
Nishio
Novick
O'Brien
Odlyzko
Park
Park
Pirhonen
Pittampalli
Poisson
Polcari
Polgrove
Prakash
Preece
Pulcini
Qu
Ragsdale
Rajkumar
David S.
Moo Ryong
Dennis
Yoshikazu
Majid
Farooq
Farrokh
JaeHeung
Nak Myeong
Shigeru
Minako
Takuya
Mark
Douglas
Skip
Thomas
Masahiro
Jae Kyun
Kari
Pablo
James
Lisa
Heesoo
Kyoung Seok
Seong-Choon
Newton
Irina
Michael
David
Donald
Max
James
Kazuhiro
Ayman
Mullaguru
Akihiko
Fred
Francis
Paul
PS
Soon-Joon
Riku
Eshwar
Sebastien
Amy
Jim
Rajat
Rob
Gregory
Bingyu
James
Ajay
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
25
Rausch
Rudolf
Sakakura
Sanchez
Seagren
Shaver
Sheikh
Shields
Shively
Springer
Staver
Stone
Sutivong
Taylor
Tee
Tomcik
Toro
Trick
Tsui
Upton
Valls
Vivanco
Ward Jr
Wasilewski
Wieczorek
Wilson
Wu
Wu
Yaghoobi
Yallapragada
Yano
Youssefmir
Yuda
Yuza
Walter
Marian
Takashi
Maria
Chris
Donald
Khurram
Judy
David
Warren
Doug
Mike
Arak
Leslie
Lai-King Anna
James
Steven
John
Daniel
Jerry
Juan Carlos
Silvia
Robert
Thomas
Alfred
Joanne
Gang
Geng
Hassan
Rao
Takashi
Michael
Tetsuya
Masaaki
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
26
Evaluation Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
Create Version 15 based upon agreements reach in session
Update the Open Issues list and set conference calls
Start putting work on the email list again
Need Contributions to close open items (example Link Budget section data
rates and associated table)
New Open/Suggested work items – need contributions
•
•
New Section of QoS by Traffic type (see 05/20 & 05/22)
VoIP alternatives
•
•
•
•
No Model – Technology proponent needs to show support for
SRD Req.
Generic Model independent of vocoder
Each Proponent supplies simulation based upon on their own
vocoder specific simulation
System Calibration Resolution of a plan
•
•
•
calibration benchmark done by volunteer committee
“phase 0”
Other choices
Channel Models
•
•
•
Review Version 8 for “Correct” restructuring and editing
Need Contributions for Completion
Update of Open Issues will be created by Editor, send to the reflector