Suggestion to Retaining ALL 16m Features IEEE 802.16 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S802.16x-07/NNN Date Submitted:.2007-06-19. Source: Hokyu Choi, Rakesh Taori E-mail: choihk@samsung.com Samsung Electronics Yongjoo Tcha yjtcha@kt.com KT *http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html Venue: 802.16m work plan discussion Base Contribution: None Purpose: To discuss Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who 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 802.16. Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>. Further information is located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat >.

Background Facts TGm work plan segregates core issues and advanced features to keep the time schedule Currently identified advanced features are: E-MBS, LBS, Multi-Radio coexistence, Multicarrier, Femto, IM, Relay, SON TGm schedule (IEEE 80216-09/0019r1) says: Initiate Letter Ballot in July 2009 Initiate Sponsor ballot in Jan 2010 Many operators want the standard to be finished by May 2010.

Current TGm Status To meet the schedule, TGm agreed a process of staged feature development in March IEEE meeting (IEEE 80216-09/0019r1) According to the workplan, TGm is supposed to decide in July session if CFC for remaining features to be issued or not.

Implications of Dropping Features Loss of competitive edge What competing specifications already have: E-MBS, LBS, Multi-carrier, IM, Relay, Multi-cell MIMO, Femto, SON, Inter-BS synchronization Lack of distinctive features For better competitiveness, we need distinctive features Multi-radio coexistence

Suggestion Keep all the features Choose downsizing of features rather than dropping This facilitates retention of all features within the time schedule Things to be kept in mind while downsizing: Proponents should understand the allowed time schedule and required level of maturity. Proponents should work together to retain the most important and feasible aspects of the feature.