23
Project / IEEE 802.20 Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Accesshttp://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 / Voice: +1 858 658 4540
Fax: +1 858 651 2880
Email:
Re: / 802.20 Session#13
Abstract / Draft of the Minutes of the Session #13;
Purpose / Minutes of the Session.
Notice / 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.
Release / 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>.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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” (C802.20-04/83r5)
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)
Straw Poll:
In support of replacing the current text in Appendix B by the text presented in C802.20-05/15.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.
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” (C802.20-04/72r4)
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
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.