3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`Agenda item
` 3
`Title:
` Approved Report (v.1.0.0) of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 LTE Ad Hoc meeting in
` Helsinki (Helsinki, Finland, 23 – 25 January, 2006)
`Information
`RAN1 Secretary
`
`Document for:
`Source:
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`Notes:
`All timestamps in this document are in GMT+2H unless otherwise noted.
`
`Fact Summary
`Meeting:
`Dates:
`Venue:
`Host:
`Attendees:
`Documents:
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 LTE Ad Hoc Meeting
`23rd through 25th January, 2006
`High Tech Centre (HTC), Helsinki, Finland
`Nokia
`175 delegates
`263 (including some withdrawn and post-meeting artefacts)
`
`Yoshikazu Ishii
`ETSI Mobile Competence Center
`yoshikazu.ishii@etsi.org
`
`APPLE 1035
`
`

`

`R1-060756
`
`
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`Table of contents
`
`Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1
`1. Opening of the meeting ........................................................................................................................ 2
`1.1
`Call for IPR ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
`2
`Approval of the agenda ......................................................................................................................... 2
`3.
`Summary of LTE decisions from TSG RAN#30 ................................................................................ 2
`4.
`Liaison statement handling .................................................................................................................. 3
`5.
`Evolved UTRA and UTRA (Physical Layer) ....................................................................................... 4
`5.1
`Description of OFDMA Downlink used in the concept evaluation ............................................................ 4
`5.1.1
`Contributions reflecting results from email reflector discussions ........................................................ 5
`5.1.2
`Basic Transmission Scheme .................................................................................................................... 6
`5.1.3
`Physical Layer Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 20
`5.1.4
`Physical Layer Measurements ............................................................................................................... 29
`5.1.5
`Downlink related UE Capability ............................................................................................................. 29
`5.2
`Description of SC-FDMA Uplink used in the concept evaluation ........................................................... 31
`5.2.1
`Contributions reflecting results from email reflector discussions ...................................................... 31
`5.2.2
`Basic Transmission Scheme .................................................................................................................. 31
`Several multiplexing methods for uplink shared control channel have been discussed [1] – [3]. In this
`document, we further discuss some considerations on scheduling and multiplexing of uplink
`L1/L2 control signaling in SC-FDMA. ......................................................................................................... 32
`Physical Layer Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 33
`5.2.3
`Physical Layer Measurements ............................................................................................................... 34
`5.2.4
`Downlink related UE Capability ............................................................................................................. 35
`5.2.5
`Closing of the meeting ........................................................................................................................ 36
`6.
`Annex A: List of participants at RAN1 LTE Ad Hoc Jan 06 .................................................................. 37
`Annex B: TSG RAN WG1 meetings in 2006 .......................................................................................... 44
`Annex C: List of Outgoing LSs .................................................................................................................. 45
`Annex D: List of Tdocs at RAN1 LTE Ad Hoc Jan 06 ............................................................................ 46
`Annex E: List of actions ............................................................................................................................. 63
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`Executive summary
`WG RAN1 LTE Ad Hoc meeting took place in High Tech Centre, Helsinki, Finland. The meeting started at 9:00 on
`Monday 23rd and finished at 17:00 on Wednesday 25th January 2006.
`This meeting mainly focused on the Downlink discussion, so the all contributions for Uplink were not treated due to lack
`of time. On the discussion for the description of OFDMA downlink, the key technologies of Layer 1 were discussed and
`the discussion reached to the agreement on some aspects such as reference signal structure, resource unit size and resource
`blocks allocation, link adaptation. Also, for HARQ operation, the discussion points were pointed out and they will be
`discussed with RAN2 in March joint meeting. With reflect to the agreement, some text proposals for reference-signal
`structure, scheduling, link adaptation, Physical resource block size and allocation and HARQ were agreed to be included in
`TR25.814. In addition, some text proposals for channel mapping and transmission diversity were also agreed.
`Furthermore, the inclusion 1.6 MHz BW to the current spectrum allocations, which was proposed in the TSG-RAN#30
`meeting, was discussed in this meeting. The conclusion of the discussion on 1.6 MHz BW was that we keep current
`spectrum allocations for the study item phase, and discuss actual spectrum allocations in the work item. The discussion
`and conclusion were captured in the draft LS to TSG-RAN endorsed by this meeting.
`The number of contributions for this meeting was 257 (not including the withdrawn documents), and those documents
`were categorized as followed.
`
`
`Agenda Item
`
`Liaison Statement
`Evolved UTRA and UTRAN (Physical Layer):
`Downlink
`Contributions reflecting results from e-mail reflector
`discussions
`Basic Transmission Scheme
`Physical Layer Procedures
`Physical Layer Measurements
`Downlink related UE Capability
`Evolved UTRA and UTRAN (Physical Layer):
`Uplink
`Contributions reflecting results from e-mail reflector
`discussions
`Basic Transmission Scheme
`Physical Layer Procedures
`Physical Layer Measurements
`Uplink related UE Capability
`
`
`
` 1
`
`Input
`Document
`7
`
`
`Discussed
`Document
`4
`
`
`0
`110
`77
`4
`9
`
`
`0
`24
`22
`0
`1
`
`0
`58
`34
`2
`1
`
`
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`1. Opening of the meeting
`23/01/2006 09:00
`RAN1 Chairman, Mr. Dirk Gerstenberger and welcomed the participants to the RAN WG1 LTE Ad Hoc meeting and
`opened the meeting at 09.00.
`Mr. Antti Toskala welcomed the delegates on behalf of the Host Company, Nokia.
`
`
`Call for IPR
`1.1
`23/01/2006 09:05
`The Chairman drew attention to Members' obligations under the 3GPP Partner Organizations' IPR policies. Every
`Individual Member organization is obliged to declare to the Partner Organization or Organizations of which it is a
`member any IPR owned by the Individual Member or any other organization which is or is likely to become
`essential to the work of 3GPP.
`The attention of the members of this Technical Specification Group is drawn to the fact
`that 3GPP Individual Members have the obligation under the IPR Policies of their
`respective Organizational Partners to inform their respective Organizational Partners of
`Essential IPRs they become aware of.
`The members take note that they are hereby invited:
`•
`to investigate in their company whether their company does own IPRs which are, or are
`likely to become Essential in respect of the work of the Technical Specification Group.
`to notify the Director-General, or the Chairman of their respective Organizational
`Partners, of all potential IPRs that their company may own, by means of the IPR
`Statement and the Licensing declaration forms (e.g. see the ETSI IPR forms
`http://webapp.etsi.org/Ipr/).
`
`•
`
` 2
`
`Approval of the agenda
`
`R1-060001 Draft Agenda
`
`
`
`
`23/01/2006 09:05 Presented by Mr. Dirk Gerstenberger.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Mr. Chairman explained the plane and schedule of this meeting.
`Nortel commented that cell search has the great impact to the physical channel obligation and it also related to the
`other group discussion. RAN1 Chairman clarified that the about MIMO we must decide the high level principle
`until March, but we will focus this topic in the next meeting and if some party is very interested in the topics, the
`conference call should take place.
`Decision: This document was approved.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(RAN1 Chairman)
`
`Summary of LTE decisions from TSG RAN#30
`3.
`R1-060002 Summary of LTE decisions from TSG RAN#30
`
`(RAN1 Chairman)
`23/01/2006 09:25 Presented by Mr. Dirk Gerstenberger.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Chairman said that although we have the very challenging schedule, we don't
`plan to have additional meetings in April, just joint meeting with RAN2.But there might be Ad Hoc meeting in
`October.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`4.
`R1-060003
`
`
`
`(RAN WG2, Samsung)
`
`Liaison statement handling
` LS on Time Plan for FS on 3GPP System Architecture Evolution (To: RAN,
`SA, SA1, SA3, RAN1, RAN2, RAN3)
`
`
`
`(SA WG2, Vodafone)
`23/01/2006 09:30 Presented by Mr. Yannick Le Pezennee from Vodafone group
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`Decision: This document was noted
`R1-060004
` LS on "RRM for LTE" (To: RAN1, Cc: RAN2, RAN4) (RAN WG3, Siemens)
`23/01/2006 09:35 Presented by Dr. Joern Krause from Siemens
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`Decision: This document was noted. RAN1 chairman commented that we will address this LS after the discussion
`on RRM have taken place (This meeting, no reply LS) It was decided to do e-mail discussion until Denver meeting.
`(Siemens moderates).
`R1-060061
` LTE L1 related questions to RAN1 (To: RAN1)
`23/01/2006 09:43 Presented by Mr. Juho Lee from Samsung.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Chairman commented that we will try to address this LS in Denver meeting.
`Ericsson and Philips commented that we had better discuss this topic on a couple of time, not just on Denver
`meeting,
`Decision: This document was noted. It was decided to do Email discussion until Denver meeting to try to answer
`the questions (Ericsson moderates)
`
`
`R1-060062
` LS on Clarifications on Layer 1- Layer 2 Interface (To: RAN1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(RAN WG2, Motorola)
`23/01/2006 09:50 Presented by Mr. Jean-Aicard Fabien from Motorola.
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`Mr. Chairman mentioned that we discuss these topics on Joint meeting also some topics such as resource element
`will be discussed here. We should try to reply in Denver meeting,
`Decision: This document was noted. Reply in February meeting,
`
`
`Not treated.
`The following documents were not treated because the reply LS on this topics would be discussed in February meeting.
`R1-060206
`
`Input for RAN1 Answer on LS on "RRM for LTE" from RAN3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Alcatel)
`In the LS [R3-060085] RAN3 supplies some detailed questions on the inter-cell radio resource management
`requirements stemming from the application of interference mitigation techniques. Since the interference co-
`ordination proposed by Alcatel represents one example of such an interference mitigation technique, it appears to
`be a suitable approach to evaluate the RAN3 questions with regard to interference co-ordination
`R1-060207
`
`Input for RAN1 Answer on LS on "LS on Clarifications on Layer 1- Layer 2
`Interface" from RAN2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Alcatel)
`LS [R2-060061] from RAN2 raises several aspects concerning the relationship between radio resource management
`and layer 1 procedures. In the context of this document only one but decisive point shall be raised: the minimum
`size of (frequency) resource blocks.
`R1-060143
` Random Access considerations and discussion of L1 questions from RAN2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Philips)
`The LS [R2-060144, R1-060061] also poses a number of questions relating to Random Access transmissions. In
`this paper we provide some initial discussion of some of the factors affecting some of these questions
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`5. Evolved UTRA and UTRA (Physical Layer)
`
`
`
`
`
`5.1
`
`Description of OFDMA Downlink used in the concept
`evaluation
`The overview of the discussion and conclusion on the DL are as followed.
`
`
`1. Downlink Reference signals (Fat parts are agreed)
`• Not agreed: Common reference signals (always available in all DL subframes, regardless whether
`MBMS subframe or not)
`o Additional reference signals for MBMS in case of SFN (as seen from the MBMS UEs)
`• TDM or FDM scattered?
` TDM issue with 350km/h and 16QAM
`• Position in the subframes (first symbol has number 1)
`o 1st reference symbol: OFDM symbol #1 or #2 -- FDD/TDD
`o 2nd reference symbol: 4th, 5th (7th for “LTFS” (LCR TDD frame structure)) next to last or last
`OFDM symbol -- FDD/TDD
` Always present or not?
`• FD density on a given OFDM symbol containing pilots
`o Every 4th or 6th or 8th subcarrier per antenna (1/28)
`o Follows from number of antennas (by FDM, TDM for antenna 3 and 4)
`• Orthogonal pilots for sector beams
`o TDM, FDM, CDM – reconfirm gain by system simulation
`• Frequency hopping or not?
`o Related to usage of reference symbols for cell search – take as assumption now, need to
`reconfirm after cell search discussion
`
`2. Resource unit size for the evaluation phase
`• 25 subcarriers (375kHz) resource unit size proposed by a number of companies during past meetings.
`o Other sizes proposed are: 12, 15, 38, 36…
`o Take 25 (375kHz) as baseline
` Consider alternative of other values, e.g. 12 (180kHz) or 15 (225kHz) after
`discussion on interference coordination
`• Do we need additional smaller resource unit size?
`o Depends on further discussion on scheduling, multiplexing, signalling
`• Should we forbid FD multiplexing of localised and distributed transmission in one subframe? No
`o
`If we allow it, resource unit sizes for localised/distributed should either
` be fixed for both or
` have a (integer) relation to fully utilize the total of ∼75 subcarriers
`• Should we allow TD multiplexing of localised and distributed transmission within on the same set of
`subcarriers one subframe? No
`• Need for definition of logical and physical resource units?
`
`3. Resource block allocation
`•
` “Logical” resource blocks and “physical” resource blocks
`o Physical resource blocks are defined as above
`o The scheduler (L2) can assign multiple logical resource blocks
`o All logical resource blocks (size is understood in terms of time/frequency resource)
` Are of the same size in case of localised mapping
` Are of an integer fraction of the size of localised mapping in case of distributed
`mapping
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`o Logical resource blocks are mapped to physical resource blocks in either a distributed or
`localised manner
` Exact mapping rule(s) are FFS, FH can be used
` Number of signalling bits should be optimised to support multiplexing of resource
`blocks in a localised and distributed manner
` UE is informed how the physical resource blocks are organised w.r.t. distributed and
`localised mapping
`• Semi-static or dynamic is FFS
`
`4. Link Adaptation
`Working assumption to the evaluation
`- Using same AMC for all resource blocks belonging to the same L2 PDU scheduled to one user
`within one TTI and within single stream (i.e. different AMC may be used between streams in
`case of MIMO)
`Power adaptation to be investigated further
`
`5. Hybrid ARQ
`The aspects on HARQ operation such as synchronous v.s asynchronous, adaptive v.s non-adaptive,
`signalling overhead were discussed. The discussion on synchronous v.s asynchronous operation will be
`coordinated with RAN2 joint meeting in March.
`
`6. Agreed TP
`
`
`Item
`
`Channel
`Mapping
`Transmission
`Diversity
`
`Title
`
`Test proposal for frequency mapping for physical
`channel symbols
`Open Loop Transmit Diversity for E-UTRA DL
`Control Channels
`Text Proposal for 4 Diversity Antenna Transmission
`at Node B
`E-UTRA downlink reference-signal structure, text
`proposal
`TP for 25.814 on physical resource block size and
`allocation for DL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tdoc
`number
`R1-060247
`
`R1-060249
`
`R1-060250
`
`R1-060258
`
`R1-060263
`
`R1-060256
`R1-060260
`R1-060261
`R1-060133
`R1-060240
`
`Reference-
`Signal
`Resource block
`size and
`allocation
`Scheduling
`
`Text proposal on scheduling
`Text proposal on EUTRA CQI report
`Link Adaptation Link Adaptation for E-UTRA Downlink
`HARQ
`Text proposal on HARQ operation
`Others
`Missing text for section 6.2.1.1.2 of TR 25.814
`
`7. Other topics
`The conclusion of the discussion for 1.6 MHz BW was that we keep current spectrum allocations for the
`study item phase, and discuss actual spectrum allocations in the work item. The discussion about
`1.6MHz BW was captured in the draft LS (R1-060254) and was endorsed by the Ad Hoc and formal
`approval will be at beginning of RAN1 meeting in Denver.
`
`
`5.1.1
`No Input
`
`
`Contributions reflecting results from email reflector discussions
`
` 5
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`Basic Transmission Scheme
`5.1.2
`(NEC Group)
`
`R1-060055
` Frequency mapping for physical channel symbols
`The mapping of physical channel symbols in frequency domain seems to be a trivial task that there has been no
`contribution to explicitly show how it should be done. This paper propose the mapping method and corresponding
`text proposal for [TR 25.814]
`23/01/2006 10:05 Presented by Mr. Thanh Bui.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Some companies raised concerns that this text proposal seems to be Stage 3
`(implementation) so we should not take such a description now.
`Decision: The TP was revised with keeping the lower part of the figure, and address 1.25MHz case in R1-
`0600247
`R1-060247
` Test proposal for frequency mapping for physical channel symbols
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(NEC Group)
`25/01/2006 16:53 Presented by Mr. Thanh Bui.
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`Decision: This text proposal was agreed.
`
`
`Tx diversity
`R1-060066
`
` Shared Control Channel Performance with SFTD and Cell Edge Interference
`Coordination
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Texas Instruments)
`This contribution examines the achievable shared control channel (SCCH) performance with the application of
`space-frequency transmit diversity (SFTD) in various multipath propagation environments. The objective is to
`obtain an indication of the achievable performance and find the additional gains, if any, that are needed to obtain a
`target frame error rate (FER) between 1% and 0.1% for the signal to interference and noise ratios (SINR)
`experienced by the very large majority of UEs (5%-10% CDF).
`23/01/2006 10:15 Presented by Mr. Aris Papasakellariou.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Motorola commented that this evaluation in based on the worst case, but we
`can consider the scheduling. TI clarified that the high gain is not expected by the scheduling of the control channel.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`R1-060166
` Space Time Block Coding and Space Frequency Block Coding for Uni-cast
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(NEC)
`In this contribution we propose space time and space frequency block coding for consideration for uni-cast.
`23/01/2006 11:10 Presented by Mr. Thanh Bui.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Motorola asked what kind of channel the diversity is supposed for? Dedicated
`or control or both. NEC answered that it is for the dedicated channel, the control channel is not sure now. Motorola
`commented that the gain will become minimum by the scheduling for the data CH because we can consider the
`other schemes such as MIMO.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`(Nortel)
`
`R1-060148
` DL 4x2 Rate 1 Double STTD schemes comparison
`The purpose of this contribution is to compare the performance of Diag-ABBA code and Sub Coding Based
`Transmit diversity (SCTD) code along with some complexity analysis on the decoders.
`23/01/2006 11:25 Presented by Mr. Jianming Wu.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Motorola asked if this proposal is for data or control channel. Nortel answered
`it is for both.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`R1-060011
`Cyclic Shift Diversity for EUTRA DL Control Channels & TP
`23/01/2006 11:35 Presented by Mr. Mark Harrison.
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`It was asked if MIMO is used also for L1/L2 control signalling. Motorola commented that it's good point and
`Motorola clarified that the point of this document is the proposal of high level diversity for the control channel.
`Decision: This TP was revised to focus on the usage of Tx Div for the control signalling in R1-060249
`R1-060249
` Open Loop Transmit Diversity for E-UTRA DL Control Channels (Motorola)
`25/01/2006 16:50 Presented by Mr. Mark Harrison.
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`Nortel commented that the applicability of Tx diversity could be for data channel in this text proposal
`Decision: This TP was agreed. The applicability of TX diversity for data is not precluded by this TP.
`
`
`
`(Motorola)
`
` 6
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`R1-060012
`
` Benefits of Multiple Transmit Antennas at Node-B for EUTRA DL & TP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Motorola)
`23/01/2006 12:55 Presented by Mr. Mark Harrison.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Samsung asked if the 4 RX is need. Motorola commented that it's depending
`on the UE capability, minimum is two RX Antennas. NTT DoCoMo asked if the orthogonal pilot is both fist and
`second reference channel. Motorola commented that now they have no specific construction and it's just proposal.
`Decision: This TP was revised in R1-060250 with just rewording. .
`
`
`R1-060250
` Text Proposal for 4 Diversity Antenna Transmission at Node B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Motorola)
`25/01/2006 16:50 Presented by Mr. Mark Harrison.
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`Decision: This TP was agreed.
`
`Scrambling
`(Ericsson)
`
`
`
`
`
` E-UTRA downlink scrambling
`R1-060083
`In this paper, we propose that scrambling should be used for the LTE downlink. We also discuss some specific
`issues related to downlink scrambling:
`23/01/2006 12:10 Presented by Dr. Erik Dahlman
`Discussion (Question / Comment): There are some discussion on the DL scrambling code on the topics such as
`the benefit and the relation to the interference mitigation. NEC pointed out that the different level scrambling such
`as inter-cell and intra cell and cell specific is more complicated. Also Nokia comment that what is the benefit of
`scrambling because we can have other mitigation scheme.
`Decision: This document was noted
`(Ericsson)
`
`
`R1-060084
` E-UTRA downlink scrambling, text proposal
`In this contribution, The following is proposed: 1. Downlink scrambling should be symbol based, 2. Scrambling
`should be applied independently for reference signals, L1/L2 control signaling, and the shared channel, 3.
`Scrambling for shared-channel should be UE specific
`Decision: This document was noted without presentation.
`(NTT DoCoMo,
`
`
`
`R1-060036
` Scrambling Code in E-UTRA Downlink
`Fujitsu, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, NEC, Sharp, Toshiba Corporation)
`In the E-UTRA downlink using OFDM based radio access, scrambling codes are essential in randomizing the
`interference from surrounding cells. This paper proposes a scrambling code scheme for the E-UTRA downlink.
`23/01/2006 12:25 Presented by Dr. Mamoru Sawahashi from NTT DoCoMo.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Ericsson commented that they have the similar view to NTT DoCoMo.
`Decision: This document was noted. It was decided to revisit this document after interference mitigation discussion.
`However, there was no time during this meeting.
`
`
`(ZTE)
` A modification of parameters for TDD frame structure
`R1-060212
`In the previous meetings, TDD frame structures for co-existence with LCR was defined and mostly accepted by
`RAN1. This contribution proposes a modification of parameters for TDD frame structure to improve spectrum
`efficiency and performance of LTE TDD system.
`23/01/2006 13:45 Presented by
`Discussion (Question / Comment): CATT raised a concern that we could not change the parameters without the
`sufficient simulation. Also Motorola commented that they cannot understand the different model for FDD and TDD.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`R1-060218
`
`Introduce the support of 1.6MHz bandwidth
`Tech, Huawei)
`This contribution suggests introducing to support 1.6MHz bandwidth for LTE TDD frame structure co-existence
`with LCR-TDD, and also text proposal of downlink parameters for TR25.814 is proposed.
`23/01/2006 13:50 Presented by Mr. Wang Ka.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): At first, it was clarified by Chairman there wasn't any conclusion on this topic
`on the last RAN plenary. Ericsson commented that they also have the document on the same topic. We need the
`more discussion in this stage, but we should keep in mind of this value. Also, they pointed out that for the final
`decision we must take the different operator opinion into account.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`R1-060108
` Transmission bandwidth less than 5 MHz for LTE radio access
`Decision: This document was noted without presentation with related to the R1-060108.
`
`
`
`(CATT, RITT, TD-
`
`(Ericsson)
`
` 7
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`The conclusion of the discussion for 1.6 MHz BW was that we keep current spectrum allocations for the study item
`phase, and discuss actual spectrum allocations in the work item.
`After then, RITT commented that this topic is for the requirement aspect related to the TR25.913 so that we should
`take any decision on this topic. But RAN1 chairman pointed out that RAN1 don't make any conclusion on the
`requirement aspects. The discussion about 1.6MHz BW was captured in next draft LS.
`R1-060254 Draft LS) RAN1 discussion about the introduction of 1.6MHz
`24/01/2006 19:50 Presented by Mr. Lin Hui.
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`Decision: This draft LS was endorsed by the Ad Hoc and formal approval will be at beginning of RAN1 meeting in
`Denver.
`
`
`
`(RITT)
`
`
`(IPWireless)
`
`
` Missing text for section 6.2.1.1.2 of TR 25.814
`R1-060240
`This document is a resubmission of R1-051538, submitted to RAN WG1 #43 but not treated due to lack of time.
`Following the decisions made at RAN #30, this document is a little “behind the times”. However, it is felt that
`insertion of some text currently missing for section 6.2.1.1.2 would be beneficial for completeness of the TR.
`23/01/2006 14:00 Presented by Mr. Nicholas Anderson.
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`Decision: This TP was agreed to be included in TR.
`
`
`(Toshiba Corporation)
`
`
`
`MBMS Structure for Evolved UTRA
`R1-060182
`In this contribution, we propose a MBMS structure that consists of cell-specific scrambled pilot and data. The
`proposed structure allows a UE to equalize MBMS data without identifying a channel response from each BS.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): There was no presenter in the meeting room at that time, so Chairman checked
`quickly.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`
`
`5.1.2.1
`R1-060123
`
`Modulation Scheme
` Enhancement to Maximize Frequency Diversity Gain for Distributed Mode
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(KDDI)
`Originally, OFDM does not expect frequency diversity effect, but in reality, it obtains the frequency diversity effect
`by use of FEC. This means that, even in distributed mode, the higher the channel coding rate is, the lower the
`frequency diversity effect becomes. To compensate this weak point, we present the rotational code-multiplexed
`OFDM with advanced receiver.
`23/01/2006 19:20 Presented by Dr. Hiroyasu Ishikawa.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): Ericsson asked the performance both of rate ¾ QPSK and rate 3/8 QAM for
`comparison. It was ask by NEC that how is this scheme is for LDPC case. KDDI answered that the same concept of
`twin turbo might be able to apply to LDPC, but we have not considered the application of LDPC yet. .
`Qualcomm, Philips and Ericsson commented that we need to see the simulation results more if we include this
`scheme in TR.
`Decision: This document was noted. The conclusion of the discussion on this new scheme was that the additional
`simulation results are requested until February meeting and then we will revisit.
`(KDDI)
`R1-060124
` Performance of R-OFDM with Conventional Receivers
`In our separate contribution, the R-OFDM (Rotational OFDM) has been evaluated with an advanced receiver [R1-
`060123]. This document reports the performance of R-OFDM with two types of normal receiver configurations for
`your information.
`23/01/2006 19:25 Presented by Dr. Hiroyasu Ishikawa.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`
`
`5.1.2.2
`R1-060013
`
`Reference-Signal Structure
`
` EUTRA DL Reference Signal Structure Summary and Text Proposal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Motorola)
`Despite much work on the downlink reference signal structure, progress stalled on the issues of (1) whether an
`optional (selectively transmitted) 2nd reference symbol should be mandatory (always transmitted), and (2) required
`reference signal subcarrier spacing. This contribution concludes that the working assumption should be to keep the
`optional 2nd reference symbol optional since it is not needed in many cases, and that the subcarrier spacing should
`be selected from the narrower spacings that have been investigated.
`
` 8
`
`

`

`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44
`Denver, USA, 13 – 17 February, 2006
`
`
`
`R1-060756
`
`23/01/2006 14:05 Presented by Mr. Vijay Nangia
`Discussion (Question / Comment):
`With related to the second paragraph of the text proposal, Philips asked how about the more two Tx antenna case.
`Motorola answered that the second paragraph is just example so that more than two antennas is OK.
`Samsung raised a concern that regarding TDM control channel on the last sentence we don't have any assumption
`on the control channel structure.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`(NTT DoCoMo)
`R1-060031
` Orthogonal Pilot Channel Structure in E-UTRA Downlink
`This paper presents a detailed design of the orthogonal pilot channel structure and its validity from the viewpoint of
`channel estimation accuracy in the E-UTRA downlink OFDM based radio access.
`23/01/2006 14:30 Presented by Dr. Mamoru Sawahashi
`Discussion (Question / Comment): NTT DoCoMo commented that this document is for supporting the text
`proposal from Ericsson in R1-060088.
`Qualcomm asked for clarification that the separate CDM between cells is for the soft HO region. Yes.
`Samsung raised a question on the simulation parameter and they discussed with NTT DoCoMo on the supporting
`the long CP on the VB model. It was asked if that the channel estimation is changed depending on the location.
`NTT DoCoMo answered that they use the same channel estimation on the different UE positioning. But actually we
`can consider the adaptive estimation.
`Decision: This document was noted.
`(Texas Instruments)
`R1-060070
` Text Proposal for Downlink Pilot Design for EUTRA
`The proposed TP removes the reference to the UE dedicated reference symbols, clarifies that the first reference
`symbols are transmitted in both unicast and multicast TTIs, and defines their transmission in the first OFDM
`symbol of the downlink TTI.
`23/01/2006 14:45 Presented by Mr. Aris Papasakellariou.
`Discussion (Question / Comment): TI clarified that the pilot reference signal is in the first position for all time.
`Ericsson pointed out that we disc