Delegate Report – ETSI TM4 WP2 Interim 28th Feb. to 1st Mar. 2000 CSELT Turin

40 GHz MWS WI DEN/TM 04097

Input documents: WP2 4, 7, 10, 19, 20 and 21.

Block Edge Mask (WP2 19 and 21)

WP2 19 was used as a basis for the discussion. It quickly became evident that a block edge mask independent of equipment channel spacing was the preferred option. The mask would be intended to relate only to the out of block emissions and would not imply any particular in block transmitter mask or channel arrangement. There were essentially 2 options (the first being a particular limit of the second) as follows:

Option 1

A block edge mask that specifies a limit at the block edge such that emissions in the adjacent block are at, or below, the spurious emissions limit (-30dBm/MHz, EN 301 390 or some other limit to be determined).

No "guard space" within the block is defined and each operator would be responsible for provisioning a sufficient gap between the block edge and the first carrier. In this case co-ordination between operators would not be required (or minimal), but it has a potential disadvantage that spectrum efficiency may not always be maximised.

Option 2

A block edge mask that defines an emission boundary (size to be determined - fixed "MHz" value) within the adjacent block beyond which emissions are at, or below, the spurious emissions limit (-30dBm/MHz, EN 301 390 or some other limit to be determined). This implies a particular limit "A" at the boundary, and associated roll-off, that needs further studies to determine the value.

This arrangement would lead to some co-ordination between operators when they deployed in the emission boundary zone, but potentially could improve the overall spectrum efficiency.

You will note that option 1 is the essentially the limit of option 2 when the emission boundary is zero. It was suggested that the limits would be specified in absolute terms, i.e power spectral density (dBm/MHz).

The two options were both seen as beneficial in certain scenarios. Hence, it was felt that both masks could be defined in the standard and allow the choice of which should be applied (balance of co-ordination burden versus overall spectrum efficiency) to administrations and operators concerned.

It was recognised that further consideration needs to be given to:

	The maximum value of in-block emissions (i.e. maximum PFD),
	Whether the oob limit should relate to the carrier nearest the block edge or a sum of those in the block (also multicarrier systems issues),
	How equipment is tested to the fixed block edge masks.

A liaison to SE19 was produced (as a reply to WP2 7) which described these block edge concepts and sought their guidance on whether this was a sensible way forward and asked for advice on the "values" to be used. This will be placed on the server with 2 weeks AbC before sending to SE19.

On the basis of the above the content of WP2 21 on block edge masks was somewhat overtaken by events, although the points relating to inter-service sharing were noted as being relevant to SE19 – note option 1 may prove useful in this context.

Text of the MWS Standard (WP2 4, 10, 20 and 21)

The text proposed in WP2 21 relating to "Frequency Plan and Channel Arrangements" was accepted as the working text without change (parallel text within WP2 20 was withdrawn). It was decided that the text relating to "Channel Arrangements" was now basically redundant - based upon the assumptions regarding the block edge mask being independent of channel spacing.

Regarding WP2 10, it should be noted that the proposed changes to the "Scope" of the standard relating to including minimum equipment requirements for system parameters, and essentially giving co-existence parameters secondary status, is of concern and several members pointed this out during the meeting. Due to this uncertainty it was not possible to consolidate both WP2 4 and 10 into agreed draft text for the standard. This has an impact on the WI definition and should be an area for input at the next full TM4 Plenary (19^th – 23^rd June 2000).

On evidence of this meeting, particularly relating to the feedback required from SE19, it is unlikely that the standard will be available for the approval process at the next full TM4 Plenary.

26 - 29 GHz Multicarrier Standard (EN 301 213-5) WI DEN/TM 04099
Input documents: WP2 2, 6 and 23

Substantial discussion was made on the draft text for the document. Specifically, issues relating to fully populating a channel for testing purposes were resolved. The current draft will be available as an annex to the report of this meeting. Further revisions will be addressed by correspondence and it is expected that the draft standard will be available for the two step approval process at the next full TM4 Plenary.

Other Issues
Input documents: WP2 9, 22 and 24.

WP2 9 – This liaison announcing Ms. Marianna Goldhammer (Breezecom) as liaison officer from 802.16 to ETSI TM4 was noted.

WP2 22 and 24 – These both presented the current version of the IEEE 802.16.2 ‘recommended practice to facilitate co-existence of BFWA’ for information. No significant discussion was had but the rapporteur (Phil Whitehead) requested that any comments be forwarded to himself as well as Barry Lewis (liaison officer from ETSI TM4 to IEEE 802.16) for possible discussion at the next IEEE 802.16 meeting (6^th – 10^th March 2000).

The current draft text of the DEN/TM-04069 co-existence standard will be forwarded to IEEE 802.16 through the TM4 liaison officer.

Jim Nixon
RA2/BPMU Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Team
2 March 2000

Top