IMT-Advanced Opening Report July 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0752r2 July 2008 IMT-Advanced Opening Report Date: 2008-07-12 Authors: Name Company Address Phone email Bruce Kraemer Marvell 5488 Marvell Ln Santa Clara, CA 95054 +1 - 321 4 27 4098 bkraemer@ marvell .com Darwin Engwer Nortel Networks 4655 Great America Pkwy, Santa Clara CA 95054 408 495 2588 dengwer@nortel.com Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel) Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

July 2008 Updates since May Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

One Page Summary Most of Circular letter components completed in Dubai July 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)

IMT-ADV Schedule July 2008 Dubai Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

IMT-Advanced RIT development process July 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)

Meeting Report Documents July 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)

Submission Related Documents July 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)

Supported Test Environments July 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)

Environments July 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)

Service Type Examples - Titles only From M.1822 July 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)

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

IMT- Advanced IMT.TECH - Radio Requirements July 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)

IMT.TECH - 4.1 Cell Spectral Efficiency TABLE 1 July 2008 IMT.TECH - 4.1 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)

IMT.TECH - 4.4 Cell edge user spectral efficiency TABLE 2 July 2008 IMT.TECH - 4.4 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)

Peak Spectral Efficiency July 2008 Peak Spectral Efficiency IMT.TECH - 4.2 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)

Traffic Channel Link Data Rates July 2008 IMT.TECH - 4.6 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)

The following classes of mobility are defined: – Stationary: 0 km/h July 2008 IMT.TECH - 4.6 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)

Handover Interruption Times July 2008 IMT.TECH - 4.7 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)

IMT.TECH - 4.8 Voip Capacity July 2008 IMT.TECH - 4.8 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)

IMT-ADV Evaluation (Temp 90) July 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 7 - 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 10 - 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)

July 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)

July 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)

July 2008 Other Info Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

Seoul, Korea Workshop July 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)

Seoul, Korea Workshop Expected Agenda Topics of the workshop July 2008 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)

WP5D Meeting Schedule July 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)

SG5 Meeting Schedule July 2008 GROUP No. START STOP PLACE SG5 10 Nov-08 11 Nov-08 Geneva Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

Study Group 5 Chairs July 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)

July 2008 Correspondence Following the Dubai meeting, three new mailing lists are being established: rwp5d-bwa@itu.int - BWA sharing studies rwp5d-workshop@itu.int - Preparation for the IMT-Advanced workshop to be held on 7 October in Seoul. rwp5d-template@itu.int - Finalization of the Technology Description Template   Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

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

WG18 Meeting Tuesday 10:30 am Quartz A Joint WG discussion ITU-R WP5D July 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)

July 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 802.18 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 802.11-08/0752r0, 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 802.16 has a discussion group already in place as a correspondence group and that 802.11, and others, are welcome to join in. Mike Lynch indicated that he would discuss this with 802.20 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 802.18-08-0019-00- 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 18-08-0019r1 to 0019r2. Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

Next Steps Continuation of activity in WG11, WG 18, WG16 July 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)

July 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0752r2 July 2008 What is the potential impact of IMT to 802.11?         Worst case scenario - future worldwide wireless system excludes 802.11         Best case scenario = IMT has zero impact to worldwide wireless system, i.e. IMT is a NOP Threat to 802.11 is likely zero,what is the opportunity Should we stop this activity as it pertains to 802.11? 802.16 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 802.11 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 802.11 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 802.16m on how they view these requirements (esp. the VOIP capacity number). Where does 802.16m need help from 802.11, if at all, to construct a more complete submission? How might 802.11 meet the VOIP requirements as they currently stand? How might 802.11 compare/ emphasize video delivery? Should 802.11 continue for inclusion in core specifications or for awareness? Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel) Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

July 2008 Discussion Data aspects of IMTA services/environments 802.11 vs other RIT candidates especially 802.16m Has the lack of recognition of 802.11 in IMT-2000 adversely affected market of 802.11. Looking backwards , there has been none. What about the future? Would continuing engagement with IMTA help? How valuable is access to IMTA spectrum to 802.11? 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)

Conclusion Pursue the following topic: July 2008 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/0752r2 July 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 802.11 schedule Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel) Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer(Nortel)

How to announce telecon via reflector(s)?11/18/16 July 2008 How to announce telecon via reflector(s)?11/18/16 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)