Duplex Rel-18

 RAN1#109-e

9.3       Study on evolution of NR duplex operation

Please refer to RP-220633 for detailed scope of the SI.

R1-2204302        Work plan on Rel-18 evolution of NR duplex operation SI  CMCC, Samsung

R1-2205187        TR 38.858 skeleton for study on evolution of NR duplex operation   CMCC  (rev of R1-2204301)

[109-e-R18-Duplex-01] – Fei (CMCC)

Email discussion and approval of TR skeleton for Rel-18 SI on evolution of NR duplex operation by May 13

R1-2205188         Summary on email discussion of TR skeleton for Rel-18 SI on evolution of NR duplex operation Moderator (CMCC)

R1-2205310        Summary#2 on email discussion of TR skeleton for Rel-18 SI on evolution of NR duplex operation              Moderator(CMCC)

Decision: As per email decision posted on May 14^th,

Agreement

·        TR skeleton for TR 38.858 for study on evolution of NR duplex operation as the version enclosed in R1-2205310 is endorsed. TR 38.858 is endorsed as v0.0.2 in R1-2205692 as basis for further updates.

9.3.1        Evaluation on NR duplex evolution

Including deployment scenario, evaluation methodology, and performance evaluation results.

R1-2204379        Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution   NTT DOCOMO, INC.

·        Proposal 1: Rural and Urban scenarios for FR1, and Indoor and Urban scenarios for FR2 is considered for evaluation.

·        Proposal 2: Evaluation assumptions is derived by both UL heavy traffic scenario (e.g. eMBB), and coverage enhancement scenario (e.g. VoIP).

·        Proposal 3: Frequency allocation of UL subband at middle PRBs is prioritized for the study and evaluation.

·        Proposal 4: Evaluate link level performance with LLS for study on the bandwidth of subband and the bandwidth of guard band for DL and UL subbands

o   Parameters of “power difference”, “bandwidth of interference channels/subbands”, and “bandwidth of guard band” need to be studied and defined for the evaluation

·        Proposal 5: Study and define modeling of emissions of interference signal at gNB and UE, respectively for LLS and SLS evaluations.

Decision: The document is noted.

R1-2203156        Overview of evaluation on NR duplex evolution     Huawei, HiSilicon

·        Proposal 1: To choose the deployment scenarios for Rel-18 NR duplex evolution, the industrial interest is an important factor that should be taken into account.

·        Proposal 2: Scenario 2-1 should be studied with a high priority for dynamic/flexible TDD enhancement.

o   Scenario 2-1: Macro with DL dominant TDD configuration and Pico with UL dominant TDD configuration at local area (FR1 only).

·        Proposal 3: Scenario 3-3 should be studied with a high priority for subband non-overlapping full duplex.

o   Scenario 3-3: Factory/industry Pico with subband non-overlapping full duplex (and potential Macro with DL dominant TDD configuration) (FR1 only).

·        Proposal 4: Scenario 1-3 should be studied with a high priority for subband non-overlapping full duplex.

o   Scenario 1-3: Macro with subband non-overlapping full duplex with same resource configurations (FR1 and FR2).

·        Proposal 5: The following deployment scenarios can be studied after the evaluation of other scenarios:

o   Scenarios 4: Macro with subband non-overlapping full duplex and Macro with legacy TDD configuration on the same carrier (co-channel co-existence with legacy base stations scenarios);

o   Scenarios 5: Macro with subband non-overlapping full duplex and Macro with legacy TDD configuration on the adjacent carriers (adjacent-channel co-existence or inter-operator co-existence scenarios).

·        Proposal 6: The following interferences will impact the system performance and should be studied in Rel-18 NR duplex evolution:

o   Linear interference

§  In-band BS-to-BS CLI

§  In-band UE-to-UE CLI

§  Blocking caused by DL/UL signal

o   Non-linear interference

§  Inter-subband BS-to-BS CLI

§  Inter-subband UE-to-UE CLI

§  Inter-subband BS self CLI

·        Proposal 7: The interference models of in-band BS-to-BS CLI and in-band UE-to-UE CLI used in TR 38.802 can be reused for Rel-18 NR duplex evolution.

·        Proposal 8: The following aspects for non-linear interference modeling should be studied in Rel-18 NR duplex evolution:

o   Strength of non-linear interference (RAN4)

o   Correlation of non-linear interference between antenna ports

§  Non-linear interference may be modeled as uncorrelated signals

§  Non-linear signal on each transmit antenna port can be modeled as Gaussian distribution, i.e., beamforming should not be considered in the modeling of non-linear interference

o   Channel for non-linear interference

§  Both large fading and fast fading should be modeled

·        Proposal 9: Reuse the existing BS-to-UE channel model in TR 38.901 and TR 38.802 as much as possible to determine the BS-to-BS channel and UE-to-UE channel in Rel-18 NR duplex evolution.

o   FFS: the parameters, e.g., LOS probability, delay spread, angle spread, etc., in the BS-to-UE channel model should be checked whether they are applicable to the BS-to-BS channel model and UE-to-UE channel model.

·        Proposal 10: At least the following evaluation methodologies should be considered to evaluate Rel-18 NR duplex evolution:

o   Link budget analysis

§  Interference strength evaluation for Scenario 2-1, Scenario 3-3, and Scenario 1-3

§  Coverage evaluation for Scenario 1-3

o   Link level evaluation

§  Coverage evaluation for Scenario 1-3

§  Interference suppression evaluation for Scenario 2-1, Scenario 3-3, Scenario 1-3

o   System level evaluation

§  Coverage and capacity evaluation for Scenario 2-1, Scenario 3-3, and Scenario 1-3

·        Proposal 11: Reuse the evaluation methodology, assumptions, and metrics of link budget analysis in IMT-2020 self-evaluation and/or TR 38.830 of Rel-17 NR coverage enhancement for Rel-18 NR duplex evolution.

·        Proposal 12: Reuse the evaluation methodology of link level evaluation in TR 38.830 of Rel-17 coverage enhancement for Rel-18 NR duplex evolution and adopt the evaluation assumptions and metrics in Table 6.

·        Proposal 13: Reuse the system level evaluation methodology in ITU-R M.2412 for Rel-18 NR duplex evolution and adopt the evaluation assumptions and metrics in Table 7 for system level evaluation.

·        Proposal 14: Realistic deployment limitations should be considered for the baseline of the evaluation, such as the backhaul delay, antenna port radiation pattern, etc.

·        Proposal 15: Realistic deployment configurations and fair configurations should be taken into account for the baseline selection, such as legacy TDD with frame structure as DDDSU and DDSUU.

·        Proposal 16: Capture the link budget results in Table 8-9 and the following observations into TR 38.858:

o   In-band UE-to-UE CLI can be negligible in Scenario 2-1

o   Further enhancements are required to suppress the in-band BS-to-BS CLI in Scenario 2-1

·        Proposal 17: Capture the link budget results in Table 10-13 and the following observations into TR 38.858:

o   Inter-subband BS-to-BS CLI from small cells to small cells and inter-subband UE-to-UE CLI in small cells can be negligible in Scenario 3-3

o   Further enhancements are required to suppress inter-subband BS self CLI in Scenario 3-3

o   Further enhancements are required to handle the BS-to-BS blocking and UE-to-UE blocking issue in Scenario 3-3

·        Proposal 18: Capture the link budget results in Table 14-16 and the following observations into TR 38.858:

o   Inter-subband UE-to-UE CLI in Macro cells can be negligible in Scenario 1-3

o   Further enhancements are required to handle inter-subband BS-to-BS CLI from Macro cells to Macro cells in Scenario 1-3

o   Further enhancements are required to handle inter-subband BS self CLI in Scenario 1-3

o   Further enhancements are required to handle the BS-to-BS blocking and UE-to-UE blocking issue in Scenario 1-3

Decision: The document is noted.

R1-2203203         Discussion of evaluation on NR duplex evolution       ZTE

R1-2203214         Discussion for Evaluation on NR duplex evolution     New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2203327         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      Spreadtrum Communications,BUPT

R1-2203458         Discussion on  deployment scenario and evaluation methodology for duplex operation              CATT

R1-2203557         Evaluation on NR duplex evolution vivo

R1-2203814         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      xiaomi

R1-2203903         Deployment scenario and evaluation methodology for duplex evolution Samsung

R1-2204021         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      OPPO

R1-2204053         Evaluation on NR duplex evolution SHARP Corporation

R1-2204068         Evaluation assumption and methodology for study on NR-duplex          InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2204106         Evaluation of NR duplex evolution Ericsson

R1-2204122         Discussion on deployment scenario of NR duplex evolution     KT Corp.

R1-2204135         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      Panasonic

R1-2204244         Initial evaluation on NR duplex evolution     Apple

R1-2204303         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      CMCC

R1-2204430         On the evaluation methodology for NR duplexing enhancements           Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2204529         Study on Evaluation for NR duplex evolution             LG Electronics

R1-2204721         Deployment scenarios and evaluation methodology for NR duplex evolution               MediaTek Inc.

R1-2204750         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      CEWiT

R1-2204799         On evaluations for NR duplex evolution       Intel Corporation

R1-2205030         On Deployment scenarios and evaluation Methodology for NR duplex evolution               Qualcomm Incorporated

[109-e-R18-Duplex-02] – Fei (CMCC)

Email discussion on evaluation of NR duplex evolution by May 20

-        Check points: May 12, May 18, May 20

R1-2205311        Summary#1 on email discussion on evaluation of NR duplex evolution               Moderator(CMCC)

From May 13^th GTW session

Agreement

For discussion purpose for evaluation, define the following deployment cases for SBFD:

·        Deployment Case 1 (Non-coexistence case with single SBFD subband configuration): One single operator using one single carrier is considered. All the cells belonging to the operator use SBFD operation with the same SBFD subband configuration.

·        Deployment Case 2 (Non-coexistence case with multiple SBFD subband configurations): One single operator using one single carrier is considered. All the cells belonging to the operator use SBFD operation, but different cells may use different SBFD subband configurations.

·        Deployment Case 3 (Co-channel co-existence case): One single operator using one single carrier is considered. Among the cells belonging to the operator, some of them use legacy TDD operation (static TDD operation) while the others use SBFD operation with the same SBFD subband configuration.

o   Deployment Case 3-1: Only 1-layer is considered

o   Deployment Case 3-2: 2-layer is considered

·        Deployment Case 4 (Adjacent-channel co-existence case): Two operators each using one carrier are considered and the two carriers are adjacent carriers. One operator uses legacy TDD operation (static TDD operation) while the other operator uses SBFD operation with the same SBFD subband configuration.

Note: This definition has no intention to preclude any potential solutions for SBFD in AI9.3.2

Note: SBFD subband configuration is from gNB perspective.

Agreement

For SBFD Deployment Case 1, at least consider the following scenarios for evaluation:

·        For FR1,

o   Indoor office (use Indoor office defined in TR38.802/TR38.901 as starting point)

o   Urban macro (use Urban macro defined in TR38.802/TR38.901 as starting point)

§  FFS: UE outdoor/indoor proportion, clustering, etc

o   Optional: Dense Urban with 1-layer or 2-layer (use Dense Urban defined in TR38.802/TR38.901 as starting point)

o   FFS: Rural

·        For FR2-1,

o   Indoor office (use Indoor office defined in TR38.802/TR38.901 as starting point)

o   Dense Urban Macro layer (use Dense Urban defined in TR38.802 as starting point)

§  FFS: UE outdoor/indoor proportion, clustering, etc

o   Optional: Dense Urban micro (use Dense Urban micro defined in TR38.802/TR38.901 as starting point)

·        FFS: Whether FR2-2 is considered or not in Rel-18.

Note: For optional scenarios, they can be captured in TR and it is up to each company to provide the results. The results can be used to draw conclusion/recommendation depending on the number of companies providing the results.

R1-2205312         Summary#2 on email discussion on evaluation of NR duplex evolution               Moderator(CMCC)

R1-2205313        Summary#3 on email discussion on evaluation of NR duplex evolution               Moderator(CMCC)

From May 18^th GTW session

Agreement:

Regarding gNB self-interference modelling for system level simulation purpose, consider introducing ratio of self-interference (RSI) to represent the overall self-interference suppression capability of gNB by means of spatial isolation, subband frequency isolation, digital interference cancellation and beamform nulling/isolation, etc. RSI also takes into account the impact of Tx/Rx antenna element gain on self-interference. The RSI, denoted as ,  can be defined as the ratio of the total power transmitted by gNB across all transmit chains on a frequency unit m (e.g., subband/RB/subcarrier m) in a SBFD carrier to the residual self-interference received by the same gNB on a single receiver chain on a different frequency unit n (e.g., another subband/RB/subcarrier n) in the same SBFD carrier.

·        FFS: Model for link level simulations and relevant questions to ask RAN4

·        FFS: details of gNB self-interference modelling using RSI in SLS. As one example based on per-RB-RSI, the gNB self-interference on a single receiver chain at UL RB n can be modelled as

o       , wherein,

§       

§        is the gNB self-interference on a single receiver chain at UL RB n caused by DL transmission on DL RB m.

§  m is the DL RB index in DL subbands.

§         is gNB’s DL transmission power across all transmit chains at RB m (in dBm).

§         is the per-RB-RSI.

o   FFS: consider a statistical clutter model based on statistics of clutter strength and AoA.

·        The following should be asked to RAN4:

o       What is the value range of RSI  for each frequency range, and under what assumptions on the self-interference suppression means the value range of RSI is provided?

§  RAN1 understands the RSI can be described per subband, per RB, or per subcarrier depending on the granularity of the frequency unit, and it is up to RAN4 to provide the RSI in which granularity.

o   Whether it is possible for RAN4 to provide RAN1 the respective capabilities of different self-interference suppression means? e.g., is it possible to provide the separate estimates for spatial isolation, subband frequency isolation, beamform nulling/isolation, and digital cancellation, etc., as below?

§      +…

·         denotes the spatial isolation.

·         denotes the suband frequency isolation between the Tx frequency unit m and the Rx frequency unit n.

·         denotes the beamform nulling or beam isolation.

·         denotes the digital cancellation capability.

o   Whether it is possible to simplify the RSI as frequency flat model, and under which condition(s) the dependency of the RSI on frequency can be ignored?

o   The feasibility of provided value range of RSI regarding factors such as blocking, AGC, etc.

o   Does RSI have any dependency with the following factors or any other factors? What are the dependencies?

§  gNB’s antenna aspects, e.g., the assumed antenna architecture, the number of transmit chains and receive chains, etc.

§  Frequency aspects, e.g., the frequency distance between the Tx frequency unit m and the Rx frequency unit n, the number of RBs allocated for DL transmission, etc.

§  Beam aspects, e.g., Tx/Rx beam-pair for FR1/FR2 especially for clutter echo, etc.

·        Note: RAN1’s consideration on the frequency locations and sizes of SBFD DL subband and SBFD UL subband assumed in SBFD operation can be provided to RAN4.

Agreement

For discussion of gNB-gNB and UE-UE co-channel inter-subband CLI modelling in system level simulation, RAN1 understands at least the following two aspects need to be considered:

·        Aspect 1: The unwanted emissions due to Tx non-linearity at the transmitter of the aggressor from the allocated RBs to the non-allocated RBs in the same carrier.

·        Aspect 2: The receiver selectivity at the victim to receive the desired signal in the allocated RBs in the presence of the unwanted signals at the non-allocated RBs. (e.g. receiver blocking at the victim, overload of the receiver dynamic range, etc)

·        The following questions should be asked to RAN4:

·        Whether it is feasible to consider the above two aspects for gNB-gNB and UE-UE co-channel inter-subband CLI modelling in system level simulation? Are there any other aspects should also be taken into account?

·        For a specific pair of DL frequency unit m (e.g., subband/RB m) and UL frequency unit n (e.g., subband/RB n) of gNB-gNB link, where the DL frequency unit m and UL frequency unit n are in the same carrier and non-overlapping in frequency, and assuming the aggressor gNB transmits on the DL frequency unit m and the victim gNB receives on the UL frequency unit n,

o   How to model the interference from DL frequency unit m to UL frequency unit n due to Aspect 1 (defined above) at the gNB transmitter?

o   How to model the interference from DL frequency unit m to UL frequency unit n due to Aspect 2 (defined above) at the gNB receiver?

o   How to model the above interferences for the following two cases:

§  inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI

§  co-site inter-sector co-channel inter-subband CLI

·        For a specific pair of DL frequency unit m (e.g., subband/RB m) and UL frequency unit n (e.g., subband/RB n) of UE-UE link, where the DL frequency unit m and UL frequency unit n are in the same carrier and non-overlapping in frequency, and assuming the aggressor UE transmits on the UL frequency unit n and the victim UE receives on the DL frequency unit m,

o   How to model the interference from UL frequency unit n to DL frequency unit m due to Aspect 1 (defined above) at the UE transmitter?

o   How to model the interference from UL frequency unit n to DL frequency unit m due to Aspect 2 at the UE receiver?

FFS: Usage of the above model provided by RAN4 in the evaluation

Agreement

At least the following metrics are considered for SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD evaluation.

·        DL/UL UPT or user throughput (CDF or {mean, 5%, 50%, 95%}) using SLS

·        Latency (CDF or {mean, 5%, 50%, 95%}) using SLS

·        Resource utilization using SLS

·        DL/UL received SINR using SLS

·        Coverage metric

o   FFS: MPL to achieve a certain bit rate in UL and DL

·        FFS: definitions of the above metrics

·        FFS: other metrics

Agreement

Regarding traffic model for SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD evaluation, at least FTP3 is considered. Performance evaluation comparison between different duplex modes (e.g., legacy static TDD vs. SBFD) should be performed based on the same amount of input traffic.

·        FFS: other traffic models, e.g., XR, VoIP

·        FFS: Packet size, traffic load, ratio of DL/UL traffic

·        FFS: additionally consider different amount of input traffic at least for adjacent-channel/co-channel coexistence studies

R1-2205540        Summary#4 on email discussion on evaluation of NR duplex evolution               Moderator(CMCC)

From May 20^th GTW session

Agreement

For discussion for duplex evolution study (all agenda items), consider the following as RAN1’s common understanding:

·        Co-channel interference: The interference is from the aggressor to the victim in the same carrier.

o   Co-channel intra-subband interference: The interference is caused by transmission of the aggressor on a set of contiguous RBs in a carrier to reception of the victim on the same set of contiguous RBs in the same carrier.

o   Co-channel inter-subband interference: The interference is caused by transmission of the aggressor in a first set of contiguous RBs in a carrier to reception of the victim in a second set of contiguous RBs in the same carrier, where the two contiguous RB sets are non-overlapping in frequency.

·        Adjacent channel interference: The interference is from the aggressor in carrier#1 to the victim in carrier#2, where the carrier#1 and carrier#2 are adjacent carriers.

Note 1: ‘Co-channel’ here means ‘co-carrier’. ‘Adjacent-channel’ here means ‘adjacent-carrier’.

Agreement

For discussion for duplex evolution study (all agenda items), consider the following as the common understanding in RAN1 on the definition of interference types for SBFD operation:

·        gNB self-interference (SI): Interference caused by DL transmission on a set of DL RBs in a carrier to UL reception on a set of UL RBs in the same carrier at the gNB side, where the two RB sets are non-overlapping in frequency.

·        gNB-UE co-channel intra-subband interference: This is the same as the legacy DL interference type in legacy TDD network with static TDD UL/DL configuration.

·        UE-gNB co-channel intra-subband interference: This is the same as the legacy UL interference type in legacy TDD network with static TDD UL/DL configuration.

·        (inter-cell) inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel intra-subband CLI: CLI caused by DL transmission of the aggressor gNB on a set of RBs in one carrier to UL reception of the victim gNB in a different site on the same set of RBs in the same carrier.

·        (inter-cell) co-site inter-sector co-channel intra-subband CLI: CLI caused by DL transmission of the aggressor gNB on a set of RBs in one carrier to UL reception of the victim gNB in another sector of the same site on the same set of RBs in the same carrier.

·        (inter-cell) UE-UE co-channel intra-subband CLI: CLI caused by UL transmission of the aggressor UE on a set of RBs in one carrier to DL reception of the victim UE on the same set of RBs in the same carrier.

·        (inter-cell) inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI: CLI caused by DL transmission of the aggressor gNB on a first set of RBs in a carrier to UL reception of the victim gNB in a different site on a second set of RBs in the same carrier, where the two RB sets are non-overlapping in frequency.

·        (inter-cell) co-site inter-sector co-channel inter-subband CLI: CLI caused by DL transmission of the aggressor gNB on a first set of RBs in a carrier to UL reception of the victim gNB in another sector of the same site on a second set of RBs in the same carrier, where the two RB sets are non-overlapping in frequency.

·        (intra-cell/inter-cell) UE-UE co-channel inter-subband CLI: CLI caused by UL transmission of the aggressor UE on a first set of RBs in a carrier to DL reception of the victim UE on a second set of RBs in the same cell or neighboring cell in the same carrier, where the two RB sets are non-overlapping in frequency.

·        gNB-gNB adjacent-channel CLI: CLI caused by DL transmission of the aggressor gNB in a carrier to UL reception of the victim gNB in another adjacent carrier.

o   This includes adjacent-channel CLI between gNBs in the same and different sectors of the same site, i.e., co-site intra and inter-sector adjacent-channel CLI.

·        UE-UE adjacent-channel CLI: CLI caused by UL transmission of the aggressor UE in a carrier to DL reception of the victim UE in another adjacent carrier.

Note: Some of the interferences may not be used according to the deployment scenarios, e.g, whether the SBFD subband configurations are the same or different across gNBs.

Note: This does not imply we need to consider all the above interference types in evaluation for SBFD.

Agreement

Regarding gNB-gNB and UE-UE adjacent-channel CLI modelling for system level simulation, RAN1 understands at least the following aspects need to be considered:

·        Aspect 1: The unwanted emissions due to Tx non-linearity at the transmitter of the aggressor from the allocated RBs in one carrier to the non-allocated RBs in the adjacent carrier.

·        Aspect 2: The receiver selectivity at the victim to receive the desired signal in the allocated RBs in one carrier in the presence of the unwanted signals at the non-allocated RBs in the adjacent carrier. (e.g. receiver blocking at the victim, overload of the receiver dynamic range, etc)

The following questions should be asked to RAN4:

·        Whether it is feasible to consider the above two aspects for gNB-gNB and UE-UE adjacent-channel CLI modelling in system level simulation? Are there any other aspects should also be taken into account?

·        For a specific pair of DL frequency unit m (e.g., subband/RB m) and UL frequency unit n (e.g., subband/RB n) of gNB-gNB link, where the DL frequency unit m and UL frequency unit n are in adjacent carriers and non-overlapping in frequency, and assuming the aggressor gNB transmits on the DL frequency unit m and the victim gNB receives on the UL frequency unit n,

o   How to model the interference from DL frequency unit m to UL frequency unit n due to Aspect 1 (defined above) at the gNB transmitter?

o   How to model the interference from DL frequency unit m to UL frequency unit n due to Aspect 2 (defined above) at the gNB receiver?

o   How to model the above interferences for the following cases:

§  the two gNBs are from the same sector of the same site in adjacent carriers, i.e., co-site co-sector gNB-gNB adjacent-channel CLI

§  the two gNBs are from different sectors of the same site in adjacent carriers, i.e., co-site inter-sector gNB-gNB adjacent-channel CLI

§  the two gNBs are from different sites in adjacent carriers, i.e., inter-site gNB-gNB adjacent-channel CLI

o   Whether it is feasible to define a similar interference ratio as BS-BS ACIR in TR38.828 but in the subband of the adjacent carrier, with finer granularity (e.g., per subband or per RB), to represent the overall effect of the Aspect 1 and Aspect 2 described above?

§  For example, whether it is feasible to define gNB-gNB-adjacent-channel-per-RB/subband interference ratio as the ratio of the power transmitted by the aggressor gNB on DL frequency unit m to the interference received by the victim gNB on UL frequency unit n? If it is feasible, then what is the value range of the gNB-gNB-adjacent-channel-per-RB/subband interference ratio for each frequency range?

·        For a specific pair of DL frequency unit m (e.g., subband/RB m) and UL frequency unit n (e.g., subband/RB n) of UE-UE link, where the DL frequency unit m and UL frequency unit n are in adjacent carriers and non-overlapping in frequency, and assuming the aggressor UE transmits on the UL frequency unit n and the victim UE receives on the DL frequency unit m,

o   How to model the interference from UL frequency unit n to DL frequency unit m due to Aspect 1 (defined above) at the UE transmitter?

o   How to model the interference from UL frequency unit n to DL frequency unit m due to Aspect 2 at the UE receiver?

o   Whether it is feasible to define a similar interference ratio as UE-UE ACIR in TR38.828 but in the subband of the adjacent carrier, with finer granularity (e.g., per subband or per RB), to represent the overall effect of the Aspect 1 and Aspect 2 described above?

§  For example, whether it is feasible to define UE-UE-adjacent-channel-per-RB/subband interference ratio as the ratio of the power transmitted by the aggressor UE on UL frequency unit n to the interference received by the victim UE on DL frequency unit m? If it is feasible, then what is the value range of the UE-UE-adjacent-channel-per-RB/subband interference ratio for each frequency range?

FFS: How to make use of the interference model in RAN1

Agreement

For SBFD evaluation, consider the following for SBFD subband configurations:

·        SBFD Subband configuration#1 with {DUD} pattern, which means one SBFD slot consists of one UL subband at the center of the channel bandwidth and two DL subbands at two sides of the channel bandwidth.

·        SBFD Subband configuration#2 with {DU} pattern, which means one SBFD slot consists of one UL subband at one side of the channel bandwidth and one DL subband at the other side of the channel bandwidth.

·        Use the following parameters for description of SBFD subband configuration in evaluation assumptions:

o   N_D: the number of RBs in one DL subband

o   N_U: the number of RBs in one UL subband

o   N_G: the number of RBs in one guard band between one UL subband and one DL subband

Agreement

For performance evaluation and comparison between baseline legacy TDD operation and SBFD operation under SBFD Deployment Case 1 (Non-coexistence case with single SBFD subband configuration), consider the following alternatives:

·        Alt 2 (No SBFD DL subband in the slots/symbols that correspond to UL slots/symbols in legacy TDD):

o   Legacy TDD: Static TDD UL/DL configuration with {DDDSU}, where S=[12D:2G:0U]

o   SBFD: Frame structure#2 (XXXXU), where X denotes a SBFD slot. In time domain, SBFD UL subband spans all the symbols in a SBFD slot. In frequency domain, SBFD UL subband is about [20%] of the channel bandwidth.

·        Alt 4 (strive for the same UL/DL resource ratio between Legacy TDD and SBFD):

o   Legacy TDD: Static TDD UL/DL configuration with {DDDSU}, where S=[12D:2G:0U]

o   SBFD: Frame structure#3 (XXXXX), where X denotes a SBFD slot. In time domain, SBFD UL subband spans all the symbols in a SBFD slot. In frequency domain, SBFD UL subband is about [20%] of the channel bandwidth.

·        Alt 1 (No SBFD DL subband in the slots/symbols that correspond to UL slots/symbols in legacy TDD):

o   Legacy TDD: Static TDD UL/DL configuration with {DDDSU}, where S=[12D:2G:0U]

o   SBFD: Frame structure#1 (DXXXU), where X denotes a SBFD slot. In time domain, SBFD UL subband spans all the symbols in a SBFD slot. In frequency domain, SBFD UL subband is about [20%] of the channel bandwidth.

·        Alt 3 (strive for the same UL/DL resource ratio between Legacy TDD and SBFD):

o   Legacy TDD: Static TDD UL/DL configuration with {DDSUU}, where S=[12D:2G:0U]

o   SBFD: Frame structure#2 (XXXXU), where X denotes a SBFD slot. In time domain, SBFD UL subband spans all the symbols in a SBFD slot. In frequency domain, SBFD UL subband is about [20%] of the channel bandwidth.

FFS: whether dynamic TDD can optionally be used for legacy TDD for comparison.

Agreement

For gNB-gNB co-channel/adjacent-channel channel model and UE-UE co-channel/adjacent-channel channel model in RAN1 SLS,

·        Large scale fading (e.g., path loss, penetration loss, shadowing) should be modelled, and companies report whether small scale fading (e.g., fast fading including antenna gain) is also modelled in their simulation.

·        Note: Antenna gain is calculated based on the gNB-gNB or UE-UE LOS direction instead on the multi-path directions if fast fading is not modelled.

·        FFS: how to model realistic LOS probability for gNB-gNB and UE-UE channel model.

·        FFS: How to set aligned channel model amongst companies for SLS calibration (if needed).

Agreement

For gNB-gNB channel model, reuse gNB-to-UE channel model in TR 38.901 with necessary modification

·        Replacing the UE’s antenna height with gNB’s antenna height, updating the angular spread

·        FFS: whether/how to update LOS probability.

·        FFS: Other details and necessary modifications

R1-2205542        Draft LS on interference modelling for duplex evolution     Moderator(CMCC)

Decision: As per email decision posted on May 23^rd, the draft LS is endorsed. Approved in R1-2205543.

Decision: As per email decision posted on May 23^rd,

Agreement

For SBFD simulation, consider 4GHz for FR1 and 30GHz for FR2-1.

Agreement

For evaluation of SBFD operation, BS uses separate panels for simultaneous downlink transmission and uplink reception, we can call it separate-Tx/Rx antenna array for description of evaluation assumption.

·        Companies can report the separation of the Tx panel and Rx panel assumed in their simulation.

·        Companies can report how the antenna elements are used for transmission or reception in a slot if BS does not perform simultaneous downlink transmission and uplink reception.

Agreement

For evaluation of legacy TDD operation, BS uses the same antenna array for downlink transmission and uplink reception, we can call it shared-Tx/Rx antenna array for description of evaluation assumption.

Agreement

For evaluation and comparison between SBFD and legacy TDD, assume the total number of TxRUs of the antenna array for SBFD is the same as the total number of TxRUs of the antenna array for legacy TDD. Regarding antenna elements, both of the two options can be used.

·        Opt 1: The total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for SBFD is the same as the total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for legacy TDD.

·        Opt 2: The total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for SBFD is two times of the total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for legacy TDD.

·        Companies report which option is assumed in their simulation.

Agreement

For SBFD Deployment Case 4, at least consider the following scenarios for evaluation from RAN1 perspective:

·        FR1: Urban Macro

·        FR2-1: Dense Urban Macro layer

·        FFS: UE outdoor/indoor proportion, clustering, etc

·        FFS: the grid shift between two networks, e.g., 0%, 100%

·        FFS: Indoor hotspot, Dense Urban Micro layer

Final summary in R1-2205541.

9.3.2        Subband non-overlapping full duplex

Including study on possible solutions, feasibility, and impact to legacy operation assuming co-existence in co-channel and adjacent channels.

R1-2205031        Feasibility and techniques for Subband non-overlapping full duplex               Qualcomm Incorporated

·        Proposal 1: Support L1/L2 based CLI reporting to increase flexibility and reduce reporting latency compared to Rel-16 L3 based framework.

·        Proposal 2: Support UE Rx beam (QCL-D) configuration and indication per CLI measurement resource for enabling CLI-aware beam management.

·        Proposal 3: Support subband-based CLI reporting for accurate measurement of CLI leakage in SBFD.

·        Proposal 4: Support inter-gNB coordination schemes for inter-gNB CLI mitigation in full-duplex to identify compatible inter-gNB beam pairs, which is enabled by inter-gNB CLI measurement and reporting per candidate DL/UL beam pair.

·        Proposal 5: Support of inter-gNB CLI channel measurement and reporting to neighbouring gNBs for enabling Tx/Rx beamforming or nulling.

·        Proposal 6: gNB should handle legacy UE by utilizing Rel-16 CLI framework and proper scheduling.

·        Proposal 7: For the coexistence study of legacy UE, No change in UE RF requirements.

·        Proposal 8: Intra-operator coexistence with legacy gNB can be handled by gNB implementation technique as subband muting, beamform nulling and interference cancellation.

·        Proposal 9: It is up to the operator deploying SBFD to make sure that inter-operator interference is addressed by subband alignment and maximum frequency separation between the UL and DL at the neighbouring channel.

·        Proposal 10: RAN1 to study how to configure more than one TDD slot patterns per cell to enable gNB full duplex operation across HD-UEs.

·        Proposal 11: RAN1 to study how to indicate to the UE which slots are SBFD slots and the configuration of UL-DL subbands frequency resources.

·        Proposal 12: The restriction rules on the DL/UL channel/RS multiplexing can be relaxed for a HD UE aware of gNB FD to improve resource utilization, reduce DL/UL switching delay and traffic latency.

·        Proposal 13: R17 IAB framework on operation parameter coordination between IAB-MT and IAB-DU links can be extended to gNB FD for CLI mitigation via DL/UL operation parameter coordination

o   UE can indicate desired DL/UL power adjustment, preferred or restricted beam, preferred neighbour UE TA adjustment to reduce impact of CLI.

Decision: The document is noted.

R1-2203157         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2203204         Discussion of subband non-overlapping full duplex    ZTE

R1-2203215         Discussion for subband non-overlapping full duplex  New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2203328         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Spreadtrum Communications

R1-2203459         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CATT

R1-2203558         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   vivo

R1-2203732         Adjacent Channel Interference in non-overlapping subband Full Duplex TDD operations            Sony

R1-2203815         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   xiaomi

R1-2203904         Subband non-overlapping full duplex for duplex evalution       Samsung

R1-2203945         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   NEC

R1-2204022         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   OPPO

R1-2204054         Subband non-overlapping full duplex            SHARP Corporation

R1-2204069         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2204107         Subband non-overlapping full duplex            Ericsson

R1-2204156         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Panasonic

R1-2204245         Views on subband non-overlapping full duplex           Apple

R1-2204304         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CMCC

R1-2204380         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2204412         Discussion on sub band non-overlapping full duplex  CENC

R1-2204423         Subband non-overlapping full duplex            Lenovo

R1-2204431         On subband non-overlapping full duplex for NR         Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2204441         Discussion on sub-band non-overlapping full duplex  ITRI

R1-2204530         Study on Subband non-overlapping full duplex           LG Electronics

R1-2204550         Discussion on sub-band non overlapping full duplex  WILUS Inc.

R1-2204637         Introduction of subband non-overlapping full duplex ASUSTeK

R1-2204651         Discussions on subband non-overlapping full duplex enhancements       ETRI

R1-2204722         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex for NR      MediaTek Inc.

R1-2204751         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CEWiT

R1-2204800         Discussions on subband non-overlapping full duplex Intel Corporation

R1-2204866         Considerations for subband non-overlapping full duplex           Charter Communications

[109-e-R18-Duplex-03] – Yanping (CATT)

Email discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex by May 20

-        Check points: May 12, May 18, May 20

Decision: As per email decision posted on May 14^th,

Agreement

Study whether/how to inform the UE of the time and/or frequency location of subbands that gNB would use for SBFD operation.

Agreement

Study the impact/potential enhancements of resource allocation in symbols with subbands that gNB would use for SBFD operation.

R1-2205361        Summary #1 of [109-e-R18-Duplex-03] Email discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Moderator (CATT)

From May 16^th GTW session

Agreement

At least study SBFD operation within a TDD carrier.

Conclusion

For discussion purpose only, SBFD symbol is defined as symbol with subbands that gNB would use for SBFD operation.

Conclusion

For discussion purpose, for SBFD operation within a TDD carrier, a SBFD subband consists of 1 RB or a set of consecutive RBs for the same transmission direction.

R1-2205520        Summary #2 of [109-e-R18-Duplex-03] Email discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Moderator (CATT)

From May 20^th GTW session

Agreement

The time and frequency location of subbands within a TDD carrier are not fixed in the specification.

·        Subject to any RAN4 guidance on minimum or maximum subband and guardband size and subband location within TDD carrier.

·        Note that whether the time and/or frequency location of subbands are informed to UE is separately discussed.

9.3.3        Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD

Including study on possible solutions, feasibility, and impact to legacy operation assuming co-existence in co-channel and adjacent channels.

R1-2203944        Views on enhancements of dynamic/flexible TDD  NEC

·        Proposal 1: Enhancement for the flexible symbols allocation can be studied, such as:

o   Methods to achieve different UE interpretation different slot format for flexible symbols can be studied.

o   LBT scheme can be applied to determine the flexible symbols used for DL or UL transmission.

·        Proposal 2: For gNB-to-gNB CLI measurement,

o   the measurement matric should be defined first, such as CLI sensitivity level.

o   Study the resource configuration and RS sequence properties for IM resources to optimally handle TRP-TRP interference measurement.

·        Proposal 3: Following points need to be studied further for gNB-gNB interference mitigation using inter-gNB signaling

o   CLI RS configuration needs to be implicitly or explicitly shared between gNBs for interference measurement

o   Information exchange should allow victim gNB to identify the aggressor gNBs/TRPs identity from CLI RS measurement

o   Assistance information sharing between gNBs to mitigate the interference observed by the victim gNB

·        Proposal 4: Unified design for CLI RS for gNB-to-gNB and UE-to-UE measurement should be considered to reduce the RS overhead.

·        Proposal 5: Sensing based scheme can be studied to avoid the CLI.

·        Proposal 6: Mechanisms to progressively mitigate interference based on measurement or report of measurement results should be studied.

Decision: The document is noted.

R1-2203158         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2203205         Discussion of enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD             ZTE

R1-2203216         Discussion for potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD           New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2203221         Potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD        TCL Communication Ltd.

R1-2203329         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            Spreadtrum Communications

R1-2203460         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            CATT

R1-2203559         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      vivo

R1-2203733         Enhancements to dynamic/flexible TDD for Full Duplex operation        Sony

R1-2203816         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic TDD           xiaomi

R1-2203905         Dynamic and flexible TDD for duplex evalution         Samsung

R1-2204023         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            OPPO

R1-2204056         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      SHARP Corporation

R1-2204070         Discussion on enhancements of dynamic TDD operations        InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2204076         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD for subband full duplex               Panasonic

R1-2204108         Flexible/dynamic TDD      Ericsson

R1-2204246         Views on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD    Apple

R1-2204305         Discussion on potential enhancements on flexible/dynamic TDD            CMCC

R1-2204381         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2204432         Dynamic TDD enhancements          Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2204442         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            ITRI

R1-2204503         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      Lenovo

R1-2204531         Study on Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD     LG Electronics

R1-2204551         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            WILUS Inc.

R1-2204638         Enhancement on dynamic TDD       ASUSTeK

R1-2204723         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            MediaTek Inc.

R1-2204752         Discussion on enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            CEWiT

R1-2204801         On potential enhancements to dynamic/flexible TDD in NR systems     Intel Corporation

R1-2205032         On potential enhancements on dynamic-flexible TDD Qualcomm Incorporated

[109-e-R18-Duplex-04] – Hyunsoo (LGE)

Email discussion on dynamic/flexible TDD by May 20

-        Check points: May 12, May 18, May 20

R1-2205371         Summary #1 of [109-e-R18-Duplex-04] Email discussion on dynamic/flexible TDD               Moderator (LG Electronics)

R1-2205372        Summary #2 of [109-e-R18-Duplex-04] Email discussion on dynamic/flexible TDD      Moderator (LG Electronics)

From May 14^th GTW session

Agreement

·        For discussion in AI 9.3.3, consider the deployment scenarios for dynamic/flexible TDD which are agreed for evaluation purpose under AI 9.3.1 in RAN1#109-e.

·        Under AI 9.3.3., no more discussion about the deployment scenario for potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD

Agreement

At least, following interference scenarios can be considered for study of dynamic/flexible TDD:

·        gNB-to-gNB inter-cell co-channel interference

·        UE-to-UE inter-cell co-channel interference

Guideline for future meetings

·        Note: AI 9.3.3 handles the potential inter-gNB and inter-UE CLI handling schemes that are specific for dynamic TDD and schemes that are common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD.

·        Note: AI 9.3.2 handles the potential inter-gNB and inter-UE CLI handling schemes that are specific for SBFD.

R1-2205373         Summary #3 of [109-e-R18-Duplex-04] Email discussion on dynamic/flexible TDD               Moderator (LG Electronics)

R1-2205374        Summary #4 of [109-e-R18-Duplex-04] Email discussion on dynamic/flexible TDD      Moderator (LG Electronics)

From May 20^th GTW session

Agreement

For study of potential enhancement to dynamic/flexible TDD and/or SBFD, followings are considered as candidates of potential enhancement method of gNB-to-gNB CLI handling, where further prioritization/down-scoping of candidate schemes for study can be done in the future meetings:

·        gNB-to-gNB CLI measurement and reporting

·        Coordinated scheduling

·        Spatial domain enhancements

·        Advanced receiver

·        UE and gNB transmission and reception timing

·        Power control based solution

·        Potential enhancements to Rel-16 RIM

·        Sensing based mechanism

·        Note: Whether or not a particular scheme requires OTA or backhaul information exchange should be identified

·        Note: Any other scheme(s) for inter-gNB CLI handling is/are not precluded.

·        Note: For potential enhancements to dynamic/flexible TDD and/or SBFD, utilize the outcome of discussion in Rel-15 and Rel-16 while avoiding the repetition of the same discussion.

·        Note: Potential enhancements specific for SBFD will be discussed in 9.3.2

Agreement

For study of potential enhancement to dynamic/flexible TDD and/or SBFD, followings are considered as candidates of potential enhancement method of UE-to-UE CLI handling, where further prioritization/down-scoping of candidate schemes for study can be done in the future meetings:

·        Potential enhancements to UE-to-UE CLI measurement/reporting

·        Coordinated scheduling

·        Spatial domain enhancements,

·        Advanced Receiver

·        UE and gNB transmission and reception timing

·        Power control based solution

·        Sensing based mechanism

·        Note: Whether or not a particular scheme requires OTA or backhaul information exchange should be identified

·        Note: Any other scheme(s) for UE-to-UE CLI handling is/are not precluded.

·        Note: For potential enhancements to dynamic/flexible TDD and/or SBFD, utilize the outcome of discussion in Rel-15 and Rel-16 while avoiding the repetition of the same discussion.

·        Note: Potential enhancement specific for SBFD will be discussed in 9.3.2

Decision: As per email decision posted om May 20^th,

Conclusion

The following self-interference scenario and inter-subband CLI scenarios are not considered under AI 9.3.3 (Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD).

·        gNB self-interference

·        UE-to-UE intra-cell co-channel inter-subband CLI

·        UE-to-UE inter-cell co-channel inter-subband CLI

·        gNB-to-gNB inter-cell co-channel inter-subband CLI

9.3.44        Other

R1-2203206         Discussion of preliminary simulation results for NR duplex evolution   ZTE

R1-2203222         Backhaul Signaling Reduction for Inter gNB Information exchange       TCL Communication Ltd.

R1-2203330         Further considerations on duplex operation  Spreadtrum Communications

R1-2203560         Other issues on NR duplex evolution             vivo

R1-2203633         Discussion on Rel-18 duplex evolution         CATT

R1-2203817         Other issues on NR duplex evolution             xiaomi

R1-2204109         Inputs needed from RAN4 to facilitate RAN1 study   Ericsson

R1-2204433         RF considerations of dynamic TDD and SBFD            Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2204914         Discussion on the work plan for the evolution of duplex operation         Huawei, HiSilicon

 RAN1#110

9.3       Study on evolution of NR duplex operation

Please refer to RP-221352 for detailed scope of the SI.

[110-R18-Duplex] Email to be used for sharing updates on online/offline schedule, details on what is to be discussed in online/offline sessions, tdoc number of the moderator summary for online session, etc – Fei (CMCC)

R1-2206908         Updated work plan on Rel-18 evolution of NR duplex operation SI        CMCC, Samsung

9.3.1        Evaluation on NR duplex evolution

Including deployment scenario, evaluation methodology, and performance evaluation results.

R1-2205810         On deployment scenarios and evaluation methodology of NR full duplex             Dell Technologies

R1-2205814         Evaluation methodolgy for NR duplex evolution        Kumu Networks

R1-2205842         Proposing New Energy Consumption Metric for SBFD             VODAFONE Group Plc

Withdrawn

R1-2205896         Evolution of NR duplex operation  Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2205936         Discussion on evaluation methodology for NR-duplex              InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2205959         Discussion of evaluation on NR duplex evolution       ZTE

R1-2205988         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      Spreadtrum Communications, BUPT

R1-2206038         Evaluation on NR duplex evolution vivo

R1-2206107         Discussion for Evaluation on NR duplex evolution     New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2206237         Evaluation of UE-UE CLI for NR SBFD operation     NEC

R1-2206321         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      OPPO

R1-2206397         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      CATT

R1-2206420         Deployment scenario and evaluation methodology for NR duplex evolution               Samsung

R1-2206504         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      Sharp

R1-2206582         Evaluation of NR duplex evolution Intel Corporation

R1-2206641         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      Xiaomi

R1-2206857         Discussion on guard band evaluation of NR duplex evolution  KT Corp.

R1-2206910         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      CMCC

R1-2206983         Deployment scenarios and evaluation methodology for NR duplex evolution               MediaTek Inc.

R1-2207230         On Deployment scenarios and evaluation Methodology for NR duplex evolution               Qualcomm Incorporated

R1-2207266         On the evaluation methodology for NR duplexing enhancements           Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2207334         Initial evaluation on NR duplex evolution     Apple

R1-2207363         Study on Evaluation for NR duplex evolution             LG Electronics

R1-2207405         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2207461         Evaluation of NR duplex evolution Ericsson

R1-2207571         Proposing New Energy Consumption Metric for SBFD             Vodafone, China Telecom, Telecom Italia

R1-2207607         Additional considerations for NR Duplex evolution   Charter Communications, Inc

R1-2206909        Summary#1 of email discussion on evaluation of NR duplex evolution               Moderator (CMCC)

From Monday session

Agreement

Two types of RU (Resource utilization) are defined for SBFD evaluation.

·        Type-1 RU: DL/UL Type-1 RU = Number of RBs per cell used by traffic for the given link direction during observation time / Total number of all the RBs per cell including DL, UL and guard bands over observation time.

·        Type-2 RU (Follow TR 36.814): DL/UL Type-2 RU = Number of RBs per cell used by traffic for the given link direction during observation time / Total number of RBs per cell available for traffic for the given link direction over observation time

·        Note: In case of MU-MIMO, one RB allocated to N users within a cell is only counted as used once.

·        Companies are to submit results for both RU definitions

·        FFS: RU definition for dynamic TDD evaluations

Agreement

For UE distribution of Urban Macro and Dense Urban Macro layer,

• Baseline: (UE clustering)
• 10 users per macro TRP
• Step 1: Randomly drop X UE cluster centers within one macro cell geographical area considering the minimum distance between macro TRP to UE cluster center as D_{macro-to-cluster} and the minimum distance between two UE cluster centers as D_{inter-cluster}
• Step 2: Y% UEs are randomly and uniformly dropped within the UE clusters with the radius of R, (1-Y%) users randomly and uniformly dropped throughout the macro geographical area
• UE outdoor/indoor proportion: 20% outdoor in cars: 30km/h; 80% indoor in houses: 3km/h
• FFS the values of X, D_{macro-to-cluster}, D_{inter-cluster}, R, Y%
• Optional:
• 10 users per macro TRP, and all users are randomly and uniformly dropped within the macro cell
• At least for FR1: 20% outdoor in cars: 30km/h; 80% indoor in houses: 3km/h
• FFS: FR2 details

Agreement

For Dense Urban with 2-layer for FR1, consider micro cell TRPs are deployed as following

·        Step 1: Randomly drop [3] micro TRP centers within one macro cell geographical area considering the minimum distance between micro TRP centers (D_{inter-micro-center}) and the minimum distance between macro TRP and micro TRP center (D_{macro-to-micro-center}).

·        Step 2: Randomly deploy one micro TRP on the area circle around each micro TRP center with the radius of half of D_{inter-micro-center}

·        Step 3: Determine the horizontal angle of the micro TRPs with the planer facing to the micro TRP center.

·        D_{inter-micro-center} =[57.9 m], D_{macro-to-micro-center} = [105 m]

R1-2207887         Summary#2 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution    Moderator (CMCC)

R1-2207888        Summary#3 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution Moderator (CMCC)

From Wed session

Agreement

For latency related performance metric for FTP model 3 in SLS, option 1 is baseline, it is up to companies to report the latency with option 2.

• Packet latency: defined as the time which starts when the packet is received in the transmit buffer and ends when the last bit of the packet is correctly delivered to the receiver.
• (baseline) Option 1: Calculate the latency for each packet for each UE, and then generate CDF of latency for all these packets from all the UEs.
• Packet-Latency CDF: The CDF of the packet latencies of all the packets from all the UEs.
• Mean/5%/50%/95% Packet-Latency: The mean/5%/50%/95% value of Packet-Latency of all the packets from all the UEs.
• (optional) Option 2: Calculate the latency for each packet for each UE, and then calculate the average latency for each UE, then generate the CDF for these average latency for each UE
• UE-Average-Latency: defined as the average packet latency for a UE
• UE-Average-Latency CDF: The CDF of the UE-Average-Latency for all users.
• Mean/5%/50%/95% UE-Average-Latency: The mean/5%/50%/95% value of UE-Average-Latency for all users.
• Note: HARQ re-transmission should be considered for latency evaluation.
• Unfinished/dropped FTP packets are not incorporated in the packet latency calculation.
• Unfinished/dropped Packet Rate is defined as the number of the unfinished packets for all users divided by the total number of generated packets for all users
• To be reported as part of the system level simulation results

R1-2208030        Summary#4 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution Moderator (CMCC)

Agreement

For UPT (user perceived throughput) related performance metrics for FTP model 3 in SLS, adopt the following option.

·        Option 1: UPT is defined as the size of an FTP packet divided by the time which starts when the packet is received in the transmit buffer and ends when the last bit of the packet is correctly delivered to the receiver [Refer to TR36.814].

o   Unfinished FTP packets should be incorporated in the UPT calculation. The number of served bits (possibly zero) of an unfinished FTP packet by the end of the simulation is divided by the served time (simulation end time – file arrival time) [Refer to TR36.889].

o   Consider zero bit for dropped FTP packets.

o   Average-UPT of a user: defined as the average from all UPTs for all FTP packets intended for this user [Refer to TR36.814].

o   Tail-UPT of a user: defined as the worst 5% UPT among all FTP packets intended for this user [Refer to TR36.814].

o   Median-UPT of a user: defined as the 50% UPT among all FTP packets intended for this user.

o   Average-UPT CDF: The CDF of the Average-UPTs for all users.

o   Tail-UPT CDF: The CDF of the Tail-UPTs for all users.

o   Median-UPT CDF: The CDF of the Median-UPTs for all users.

o   Mean/5%/50%/95% Average-UPT: The mean/5%/50%/95% value of Average-UPTs for all users.

o   Mean/5%/50%/95% Tail-UPT: The mean/5%/50%/95% value of Tail-UPTs for all users.

o   Mean/5%/50%/95% Median-UPT: The mean/5%/50%/95% value of Median-UPTs for all users.

Agreement

·        Adopt the following table for traffic model of FTP model 3 for scenarios in deployment case 1 for SBFD.

Working assumption:

·        Adopt the following table for gNB-gNB channel model and gNB-UE channel model.

Agreement

·        For evaluation of SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, adopt the following evaluation assumptions.

Agreement

Update the previous agreement as below:

For UE distribution of Urban Macro and Dense Urban Macro layer,

• Baseline: (UE clustering at least for FR1)
• M users per macro TRP
• Step 1: Randomly drop X UE cluster centers within one macro cell geographical area considering the minimum distance between macro TRP to UE cluster center as D_{macro-to-cluster} and the minimum distance between two UE cluster centers as D_{inter-cluster}
• Step 2: Y% UEs are randomly and uniformly dropped within the UE clusters with the radius of R, (1-Y%) users randomly and uniformly dropped in the macro geographical area outside the clusters
• Note: UEs dropped within the UE cluster(s) are indoor with 3km/h; UEs dropped outside the UE cluster(s) are outdoor in car with 30km/h
• UE outdoor/indoor proportion: 20% outdoor in cars: 30km/h; 80% indoor in houses: 3km/h
• Outdoor UEs: 1.5 m;
• FFS: Indoor UEs height
• Y%=80%
• FFS the values of M, X, D_{macro-to-cluster}, D_{inter-cluster}, R
• Optional:
• 10 users per macro TRP (per direction), and all users are randomly and uniformly dropped within the macro cell
• At least for FR1: 20% outdoor in cars: 30km/h; 80% indoor in houses: 3km/h
• Outdoor UEs: 1.5 m;
• Indoor UEs: 3(n_fl – 1) + 1.5; n_fl ~ uniform(1, N_fl) where N_fl ~ uniform(4,8) [refer to TR 36.873 Table 6-1]
• FFS: FR2 details

Agreement

For LOS probability of gNB-gNB channel,

• For Macro-gNB-to-Macro-gNB case
• Option 3: If the 2D distance between two Macro gNBs are less than or equal to the ISD (200m for Dense Urban, and 500m for Urban Macro), set the LOS probability to X; Otherwise, reuse gNB-to-UE LOS probability equation in TR 38.901.
• X = 0.75
• For other cases, reuse gNB-to-UE LOS probability equation in TR 38.901.

Agreement

For Dense Urban Micro layer for FR2-1,

·        Regarding the layout, only consider the Micro TRPs of Dense Urban 2-layer network. All users communicate with micro TRPs, i.e. macro cell is only used for determining position of micro TRP.

·        Regarding UE distribution, all users are randomly and uniformly dropped around Micro TRP center with the radius of R (R = [28.9m]).

Agreement

For UE distribution of Dense Urban with 2-layer, reuse the modeling in TR38.802 as much as possible.

• For FTP traffic model 3: 2/3 users randomly and uniformly dropped around micro TRP centers with radius of R (R = [28.9m]), 1/3 users randomly and uniformly dropped throughout the macro geographical area, and 60 users per macro geographical area.
• UE outdoor/indoor proportion: 20% outdoor in cars: 30km/h; 80% indoor in houses: 3km/h
• Outdoor UEs: 1.5 m;
• Indoor UEs: 3(n_fl – 1) + 1.5; n_fl ~ uniform(1, N_fl) where N_fl ~ uniform(4,8)

Agreement

·        For evaluation of SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, the following BS transmit power for legacy TDD are considered. These values are for the single operator case.

Agreement

For evaluation of SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, use BS antenna radiation pattern as following:

• InH: reuse Table 10 in Report ITU-R M.2412 for both FR1&FR2-1 (Table A.2.1-7 in TR 38.802)
• Urban Macro/ Dense Urban Macro layer / Dense Urban Micro layer: reuse Table 9 in Report ITU-R M.2412 for both FR1&FR2-1 (same as 3-sector BS antenna radiation model in Table A.2.1-6 in TR 38.802)
• Companies can also consider evaluation with other realistic BS antenna radiation pattern

Agreement

For evaluation of SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, use UE antenna radiation pattern as following:

·        FR1: Omni-directional with 0 dBi element gain

·        FR2: reuse Table 11 in Report ITU-R M.2412 (same as UE antenna radiation pattern model 1 in Table A.2.1-8 in TR 38.802)

R1-2208270        Summary#6 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution Moderator (CMCC)

Working Assumption

Conclusion

·        For SLS of NR duplex evolution, Rural scenario is not considered in Rel-18.

·        For NR duplex evolution evaluation, FR2-2 is not considered in Rel-18.

Agreement

For SBFD evaluation from RAN1 perspective, the evaluation assumptions that are specific for Deployment Case 2 and Case 3-1 can be discussed with low priority.

Agreement

RAN1 strives to agree on system level simulation parameters for SBFD deployment case 4 by RAN1#110bis-e with specific focus on different power levels and load levels between two operators in adjacent carriers.

Agreement

For evaluation of SBFD operation, separate-Tx/Rx antenna array can be modelled by two panel groups.

·        Legacy parameters ,  and  are used for description of each panel group:

o   M: Number of vertical antenna elements within a panel, on one polarization

o   N: Number of horizontal antenna elements within a panel, on one polarization

o   P: Number of polarizations

o       : Number of panels in a column within a panel group.

o       : Number of panels in a row within a panel group.

o       : Antenna panel spacing in horizontal direction within a panel group.

o       : Antenna panel spacing in vertical direction within a panel group.

·        Companies are to report the separation of the two panel groups. Introduce new parameters  as illustrated in the following figure.

o       : Panel group spacing in the horizontal direction. Typically,  = 0.

o       : Panel group spacing in the vertical direction.

Agreement

For evaluation and comparison between SBFD and legacy TDD, the two options for the SBFD antenna configuration agreed in RAN1#109 are further clarified as below:

·        SBFD antenna configuration option-1 (same as Opt 1 in RAN1#109 agreement): The total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for SBFD is the same as the total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for legacy TDD. The total number of TxRUs of the antenna array for SBFD is the same as the total number of TxRUs of the antenna array for legacy TDD.

·        SBFD antenna configuration option-2 (same as Opt 2 in RAN1#109 agreement): The total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for SBFD is two times of the total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for legacy TDD. The total number of TxRUs of the antenna array for SBFD is the same as the total number of TxRUs of the antenna array for legacy TDD.

·        SBFD antenna configuration option-3 (new): The total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for SBFD is the same as the total number of antenna elements of the antenna array for legacy TDD. The total number of TxRUs of the antenna array for SBFD is half of the total number of TxRUs of the antenna array for legacy TDD.

These options are further clarified with examples in the following:

·        For legacy TDD with shared-Tx/Rx antenna array, assume the antenna configuration is . The total number of TxRUs is  , and the total number of antenna elements is .

·        For SBFD antenna configuration option-1, the separate-Tx/Rx antenna array has two panel groups, and the antenna configuration for each panel group is . The total number of TXRUs is  (same as legacy TDD), and the total number of antenna elements is (same as legacy TDD). One method on the usage of TXRUs and antenna elements in DL/UL/SBFD slots/symbols is illustrated as below. Other methods are not precluded and can be reported by companies.

o   Method 1:

§  In DL slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K⁄2 Tx chains in TxRU group#1, and L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K⁄2 Tx chains in TxRU group#2.

§  In UL slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K⁄2 Rx chains in TxRU group#1, and L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K⁄2 Rx chains in TxRU group#2.

§  In SBFD slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K⁄2 Tx chains in TxRU group#1, and L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K⁄2 Rx chains in TxRU group#2.

·        For SBFD antenna configuration option-2, the separate-Tx/Rx antenna array has two panel groups, and the antenna configuration for each panel group is . The total number of TXRUs is  (same as legacy TDD), and the total number of antenna elements is (two times of that for legacy TDD). Two methods on the usage of TXRUs and antenna elements in DL/UL/SBFD slots/symbols are illustrated as below. Other methods are not precluded and can be reported by companies.

o   Method 2-1:

§  In DL slots, L antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K Tx chains.

§  In UL slots, L antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K Rx chains.

§  In SBFD slots, L antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K Tx chains, and L antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K Rx chains.

o   Method 2-2:

§  In DL slots, L antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K Tx chains.

§  In UL slots, L antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K Rx chains.

§  In SBFD slots, L antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K Tx chains, and L antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K Rx chains.

·        For SBFD antenna configuration option-3, the separate-Tx/Rx antenna array has two panel groups, and the antenna configuration for each panel group is . The total number of TXRUs is  (half of that for legacy TDD), and the total number of antenna elements is (same as legacy TDD). The method on the usage of TXRUs and antenna elements in DL/UL/SBFD slots/symbols are illustrated as below. Other methods are not precluded and can be reported by companies.

o   Method 3-1:

§  In DL slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K⁄2 Tx chains.

§  In UL slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K⁄2 Rx chains.

§  In SBFD slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K⁄2 Tx chains, and L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K⁄2 Rx chains.

o   Method 3-2:

§  In DL slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K⁄2 Tx chains in TxRU group#1.

§  In UL slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K⁄2 Rx chains in TxRU group#1.

§  In SBFD slots, L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#1 are connected to K⁄2 Tx chains in TxRU group#1, and L⁄2 antenna elements on panel group#2 are connected to K⁄2 Rx chains in TxRU group#1.

Working Assumption

For UE-UE channel model, reuse the UE-UE channel model for flexible duplex evaluation in TR 38.802 for both FR1 and FR2 as baseline, and other models are not precluded.

UE-UE channel model

Agreement

For evaluation of adjacent-channel coexistence between two networks for Urban Macro and Dense Urban Macro layer scenarios in RAN1, consider grid shifts between two networks of 0% and 100%.

·        the topologies shown below can be used for the 0% and 100% grid shift for RAN1 evaluation.

Agreement

For evaluation of SBFD operation, it is up to companies to report the BS antenna configurations used in their simulations. The BS antenna configurations in the following table can be considered for calibration purpose.

9.3.2        Subband non-overlapping full duplex

Including study on possible solutions, feasibility, and impact to legacy operation assuming co-existence in co-channel and adjacent channels.

R1-2205812         Discussion on NR sub-band full duplex        Dell Technologies

R1-2205815         RF cancellation techniques for subband non-overlapping full duplex     Kumu Networks

R1-2205834         Discussion on Subband non-overlapping Full Duplex TCL Communication Ltd.

R1-2205897         Study on subband non-overlapping full duplex            Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2205937         Discussion on SBFD operations for NR-duplex          InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2205960         Discussion of subband non-overlapping full duplex    ZTE

R1-2205989         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Spreadtrum Communications

R1-2206039         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   vivo

R1-2206108         Discussion for subband non-overlapping full duplex  New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2206117         Considerations on Subband Full Duplex TDD Operations        Sony

R1-2206170         Views on Subband non-overlapping full duplex          Fujitsu

R1-2206235         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   NEC

R1-2206322         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   OPPO

R1-2206398         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CATT

R1-2206421         SBFD feasibility and design considerations for NR duplex evolution     Samsung

R1-2206505         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Sharp

R1-2206516         Subband non-overlapping full duplex            Lenovo

R1-2206583         Potential solutions for SBFD in NR systems Intel Corporation

R1-2206642         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Xiaomi

R1-2206690         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   China Telecom

R1-2206911         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CMCC

R1-2206955         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex enhancements        ETRI

R1-2206984         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex for NR      MediaTek Inc.

R1-2207069         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CEWiT

R1-2207118         Discussion on framework for interference mitigation Rakuten Mobile, Inc

R1-2207231         Feasibility and techniques for Subband non-overlapping full duplex      Qualcomm Incorporated

R1-2207261         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Panasonic

R1-2207267         On subband non-overlapping full duplex for NR         Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2207335         Views on subband non-overlapping full duplex           Apple

R1-2207364         Study on Subband non-overlapping full duplex           LG Electronics

R1-2207368         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   KDDI Corporation

R1-2207406         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2207445         Discussion on sub-band non-overlapping full duplex  ITRI

R1-2207462         Subband non-overlapping full duplex            Ericsson

R1-2207487         Introduction of subband non-overlapping full duplex ASUSTeK

R1-2207592         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   KT Corp.

R1-2207598         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   WILUS Inc.

R1-2207805        Summary #1 of subband non-overlapping full duplex          Moderator (CATT)

R1-2207806         Summary #2 of subband non-overlapping full duplex Moderator (CATT)

R1-2207807        Summary #3 of subband non-overlapping full duplex          Moderator (CATT)

From Wed session

Agreement:

Study the following alternatives with Alt 4 prioritized, for SBFD operation at least for RRC_CONNECTED state.

• SBFD operation Alt 1:
• Time and frequency locations of subbands for SBFD operation are not known to UEs.
• UE behaviors follow existing specifications without introducing new UE behaviors for SBFD operation at gNB side.
• SBFD operation Alt 2:
• Time and frequency locations of subbands for SBFD operation are not known to UEs.
• UE behaviors for non-SBFD aware UEs follow existing specifications.
• From RAN1 perspective, new UE behaviors can be introduced for SBFD aware UEs
• SBFD operation Alt 3:
• Only time location of subbands for SBFD operation is known to SBFD aware UEs.
• UE behaviors for non-SBFD aware UEs follow existing specifications.
• From RAN1 perspective, new UE behaviors can be introduced for SBFD aware UEs based on the time location of subbands for SBFD operation
• SBFD operation Alt 4:
• Both time and frequency locations of subbands for SBFD operation are known to SBFD aware UEs.
• UE behaviors for non-SBFD aware UEs follow existing specifications.
• From RAN1 perspective, new UE behaviors can be introduced for SBFD aware UEs based on the time and frequency locations of subbands for SBFD operation.

UE capability discussion is held in work item phase.

Agreement:

For indication of subband locations for SBFD operation, study semi-static configuration of subband time and frequency location as baseline.

R1-2207976        Summary #4 of subband non-overlapping full duplex          Moderator (CATT)

Agreement

For semi-static configuration of subband location, consider same subband frequency resources across different SBFD symbols as baseline.

R1-2208122        Summary #5 of subband non-overlapping full duplex          Moderator (CATT)

Working Assumption

For SBFD operation within a TDD carrier, study SBFD scheme within a single configured DL and UL BWP pair with aligned center frequencies as baseline.

·        FFS feasibility and potential benefit of SBFD scheme within a single configured DL and UL BWP pair with unaligned center frequencies

·        FFS feasibility and potential benefit of SBFD scheme with more than one configured DL and UL BWP pair with aligned/unaligned center frequencies for a DL and UL BWP pair

Agreement

For SBFD operation Alt 4, for an SBFD aware UE configured with an UL subband in an SBFD symbol, study the following options:

·        Option 1: The SBFD aware UE does not expect to be scheduled with UL transmission outside the UL subband or to be scheduled with DL reception within the UL subband in the SBFD symbol

·        Option 2: The SBFD aware UE does not expect to be scheduled with UL transmission outside the UL subband and may be scheduled with DL reception within the UL subband in the SBFD symbol

·        Option 3: The SBFD aware UE does not expect to be scheduled with DL reception within the UL subband and may be scheduled with UL transmission outside the UL subband in the SBFD symbol

·        Option 4: The SBFD aware UE may be scheduled with UL transmission outside the UL subband or DL reception within the UL subband in the SBFD symbol

Agreement

Study the feasibility and potential benefit of UE-to-UE co-channel CLI measurement and reporting, which can be specific for SBFD, at least includes:

·        Measurement resource/reporting configuration

·        Measurement/reporting details (including UE processing delay)

·        Relevant information exchange (between gNBs) if needed

·        Usage of measurement at gNB

Note: other enhancement(s) for gNB-to-gNB and UE-to-UE CLI handling specific for SBFD are not precluded.

9.3.33        Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD

Including study on possible solutions, feasibility, and impact to legacy operation assuming co-existence in co-channel and adjacent channels.

R1-2205835         Potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD        TCL Communication Ltd.

R1-2205898         Study on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD     Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2205938         On potential enhancements of dynamic and flexible TDD         InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2205961         Discussion of enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD             ZTE

R1-2205990         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            Spreadtrum Communications

R1-2206040         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      vivo

R1-2206118         Considerations on Flexible/Dynamic TDD    Sony

R1-2206234         Views on enhancements of dynamic/flexible TDD      NEC

R1-2206323         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            OPPO

R1-2206399         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            CATT

R1-2206422         Dynamic and flexible TDD for NR duplex evolution  Samsung

R1-2206506         Discussion on potential enhancement to dynamic TDD             Sharp

R1-2206584         Potential enhancements to dynamic/flexible TDD       Intel Corporation (Late submission)

R1-2206643         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic TDD           Xiaomi

R1-2206880         Discussion for potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD             New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2206912         Discussion on potential enhancements on flexible/dynamic TDD            CMCC

R1-2206985         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            MediaTek Inc.

R1-2207070         Discussion on enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            CEWiT

R1-2207232         On potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD Qualcomm Incorporated

R1-2207268         Dynamic TDD enhancements          Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2207336         Views on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD    Apple

R1-2207365         Study on Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD     LG Electronics

R1-2207407         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2207463         Flexible/dynamic TDD      Ericsson

R1-2207476         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      Lenovo

R1-2207881         Summary #1 of potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD           Moderator (LG Electronics)

R1-2207882        Summary #2 of potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD     Moderator (LG Electronics)

From Tuesday session

Agreement:

·        Study the feasibility and potential benefits of gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI measurement for gNB-to-gNB CLI handling which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD specific and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, at least includes:

o   Measurement resource configuration

o   Measurement details

o   Relevant information exchange

o   Usage of measurement

Agreement:

·        Study the feasibility and potential benefit of UE-to-UE co-channel CLI measurement and reporting, which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD specific and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, at least includes:

o   Measurement resource/reporting configuration

o   Measurement/reporting details (including UE processing delay)

o   Relevant information exchange (between gNBs) if needed

o   Usage of measurement at gNB

R1-2207883        Summary #3 of potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD     Moderator (LG Electronics)

Agreement

Study the feasibility and potential benefits of coordinated scheduling for time/frequency resources between gNBs for gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI handling which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, the study at least includes:

·        Details of coordinated scheduling for time/frequency resources

·        Relevant information exchange

Agreement

Study the feasibility and potential benefits of spatial domain coordination method for gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI handling which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, the study at least includes:

·        Details for spatial domain coordination

·        Relevant information exchange

Note1: Study can include method for FR1 and FR2

Agreement

Study the feasibility and potential benefits of coordinated scheduling for time/frequency resources between gNBs (if needed) for UE-to-UE co-channel CLI handling which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, at least includes:

·        Details of coordinated scheduling for time/frequency resources

·        Relevant information exchange (if needed)

Agreement

Study the feasibility and potential benefit of UE-to-UE co-channel CLI handling based on spatial domain coordination method which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic /flexible TDD, at least includes:

·        Details for spatial domain coordination by gNB

·        Relevant information exchange (if needed)

Note1: Study can include method for FR1 and FR2

Final summary in R1-2207884.

 RAN1#110-bis-e

9.3       Study on evolution of NR duplex operation

Please refer to RP-222110 for detailed scope of the SI.

9.3.1        Evaluation on NR duplex evolution

Including deployment scenario, evaluation methodology, and performance evaluation results assuming.

R1-2208408         Discussion on evaluation and methodologies on evolution of NR duplex operation               Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2208483         Discussion of evaluation on NR duplex evolution       ZTE

R1-2208528         Discussion for Evaluation on NR duplex evolution     New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2208531         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex operation      KT Corp.

R1-2208640         Evaluation on NR duplex evolution vivo

R1-2208856         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      OPPO

R1-2208973         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      CATT

R1-2209003         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      Spreadtrum Communications, BUPT

R1-2209027         On evaluation methodology for NR-duplex  InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2209051         Evaluations for NR duplex evolution             Intel Corporation

R1-2209098         Preliminary System Level Simulation Results for SBFD           Sony

R1-2209174         Evaluation of NR duplex evolution Ericsson

R1-2209283         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      xiaomi

R1-2209335         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      CMCC

R1-2209423         Evaluation of UE-UE CLI for NR SBFD operation     NEC

R1-2209582         Initial evaluation on NR duplex evolution     Apple

R1-2209728         Discussion on evaluation for NR duplex evolution     Samsung

R1-2209769         Deployment scenarios and evaluation methodology for NR duplex evolution               MediaTek Inc.

R1-2209808         Study on Evaluation for NR duplex evolution             LG Electronics

R1-2209901         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2209982         On Deployment scenarios and evaluation Methodology for NR duplex evolution               Qualcomm Incorporated

R1-2210041         On the evaluation methodology for NR duplexing enhancements           Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2210194         Considerations and Recommendations for Evaluation of NR Duplex evolution               Charter Communications, Inc

[110bis-e-R18-Duplex-01] – Fei (CMCC)

Email discussion on evaluation of NR duplex evolution by October 19

-        Check points: October 14, October 19

R1-2209334        Summary#1 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution Moderator (CMCC)

From Oct 11th GTW session

Agreement:

For evaluation of SBFD Deployment Case 3-2,the following scenario is baseline for FR1:

• 2-layer Scenario B
• Layer 1: Urban Macro
• Layer 2: Indoor office or Indoor factory
• Indoor factory is optional (Companies are to report the used layout.)
• Regarding the Indoor office layer, reuse the Indoor office (InH) scenario (i.e., open office in Table 7.2-2 in TR38.901) and relevant channel model in TR38.901.
• Regarding the Indoor factory layer, reuse the Indoor factory (InF) scenario (i.e., Table 7.2-4 in TR38.901) and relevant channel model in TR38.901.
• FFS: consider only one indoor office/factory dropped in the whole network
• Layer 1 uses legacy static TDD operation, Layer 2 uses SBFD operation. All the gNBs in Layer 2 use the same SBFD subband configuration.
• Other operations are not precluded and can be reported by companies, e.g., Layer 1 uses SBFD operation and Layer 2 uses legacy TDD operation

Companies can submit results for other scenarios

Agreement:

For evaluation of dynamic/flexible TDD for the single operator case, consider the following scenarios:

• FR1
• 1-layer scenario: Indoor office with dynamic TDD UL/DL assignment
• (Optional) 1-layer scenario: Urban Macro with dynamic TDD UL/DL assignment
• 2-layer Scenario B
• Layer 1: Urban Macro
• Layer 2: Indoor office or Indoor factory (companies to report which one is used)
• Indoor factory is optional (Companies are to report the used layout.)
• Regarding the Indoor office layer, reuse the Indoor office (InH) scenario (i.e., open office in Table 7.2-2 in TR38.901) and relevant channel model in TR38.901.
• Regarding the Indoor factory layer, reuse the Indoor factory (InF) scenario (i.e., Table 7.2-4 in TR38.901) and relevant channel model in TR38.901.
• FFS: consider only one indoor office/factory dropped in the whole network
• Regarding 2-layer scenario, the two layers are deployed in the same carrier
• Layer 1 uses legacy static TDD operation with DL dominant static TDD UL/DL configuration
• Layer 2 uses one of the following options (companies to report which option is used)
• Option 1: All gNBs in layer 2 use legacy static TDD operation with the same UL dominant static TDD UL/DL configuration
• Option 2: All gNBs in layer 2 use dynamic TDD UL/DL assignment
• Other options are not precluded and can be reported by companies
• FR2-1
• 1-layer scenario: Indoor office with dynamic TDD UL/DL assignment
• (Optional) 1-layer scenario: Dense Urban Macro layer with dynamic TDD UL/DL assignment
• For above scenarios, the following is assumed:
• DL dominant static TDD UL/DL configuration: {DDDSU}, where S=[12D:2G:0U]
• UL dominant static TDD UL/DL configuration: {DSUUU}, where S=[12D:2G:0U]
• dynamic TDD UL/DL assignment: {FFFFF}, companies to report the guard symbols assumed in their simulation
• other configurations for dynamic TDD are not precluded and can be reported by companies

Companies can submit results for other scenarios

R1-2210415        Summary#2 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution Moderator (CMCC)

From Oct 13th GTW session

Agreement:

RAN1 assumes frequency isolation value in the overall RSI value ranges provided by RAN4 is based on the assumption of SBFD subband configuration with {DUD=40MHz:20MHz:40MHz} at least for FR1 and all the DL RBs in the DL subbands are allocated with maximum gNB DL Tx Power.

·        For SLS of SBFD in RAN1, the RSI is modelled as frequency flat within the UL subband.

·      Using to denote the overall RSI value provided by RAN4, RAN1 makes the following assumption

o         

§         is the residual self-interference power on the UL subband when all the DL RBs in the DL subbands are allocated with maximum gNB DL Tx Power (in linear scale).

§         is the maximum gNB DL Tx Power on the two DL subbands (in linear scale).

§         is the total number of DL RBs in the DL subbands.

§         is the total number of UL RBs in the UL subband.

§        Note:  is in linear scale

·        RAN1 further makes a simple assumption that  doesn’t change when DL RBs are not fully allocated for DL transmission, and the residual self-interference power on one UL RB when DL RBs are not fully allocated for DL transmission is computed by

o         

§         is DL transmission power of gNB per RB,  

§         is the number of DL RBs allocated for DL transmission.

·        Send LS to RAN4 to confirm RAN1’s assumptions and the subband configuration assumed for FR1/FR2

o   Also ask RAN4 if the above is applicable to other subband configurations

Agreement:

For SLS in RAN1, if only large scale fading is modelled and small scale fading is not modelled for gNB-gNB co-channel channel model, the power of inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI experienced by the victim gNB on each receiver chain at one UL RB can be modelled as

·       

o        is the power of inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI from gNB  to gNB  on each receiver chain at one UL RB (linear value)

o        is DL transmission power of gNB  across all transmit chains per RB (linear value). .

o           is the number of DL RBs allocated for DL transmission by gNB

o     is the coupling loss between gNB  and gNB  (linear value), accounting for beamforming at the aggressor gNB and victim gNB.

§  FFS: the detailed definition of the coupling loss, which can be discussed later

o        is the total number of DL RBs in the DL subbands

o       Note:  and  are in linear scale. In RAN4 reply LS, gNB ACLR (i.e., ) is provided as the candidate for TX leakage, and gNB ACS (i.e., ) is provided as the candidate for Receiver impairment.

o   Note: the model is based on the assumption that the same transmission power across different DL RBs is used in SLS. This does not prevent companies to use other DL power allocation schemes in SLS.

o   Note: This model is not applicable to the RBs in the guardband.

o   Note: This model is not applicable for some candidate gNB-gNB CLI handling schemes (for example, spatial digital beam coordination, advanced receivers)

·        Send LS to RAN4 to confirm RAN1’s understanding

Agreement:

For SLS in RAN1, if both large scale fading and small scale fading are modelled for gNB-gNB co-channel channel model, the inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI signal across all Rx chains at UL RB  at victim gNB can be modeled as

 where,

·         is the first part of inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI across all Rx chains at UL RB , caused by power leakage at aggressor gNB,

o        is the  channel matrix between aggressor gNB and victim gNB at UL RB , the beamforming of the aggressor gNB and the victim gNB can be taken into account by ,

o        is the unwanted emission across all Tx chains at UL RB  at aggressor gNB,

§         is the number of Tx chains at aggressor gNB,

§        , , is modelled as white Gaussian noise,

§         is the total leakage power at UL RB  at aggressor gNB,

§         is the DL power transmitted across all Tx chains at one DL RB at aggressor gNB, ,

§         is the number of DL RBs scheduled for DL transmission by aggressor gNB,

§         is the total number of DL RBs in the DL subbands

o      is the  normalized identity matrix with unit norm, ,

§      FFS whether  can be other values and corresponding conditions

·       FFS for

·        Note:  and  are in linear scale. In RAN4 reply LS, gNB ACLR (i.e., ) is provided as the candidate for TX leakage, and gNB ACS (i.e., ) is provided as the candidate for Receiver impairment.

·        Note: the model is based on the assumption that the same transmission power across different DL RBs are used in SLS. This does not prevent companies to use other DL power allocation schemes in SLS.

·        Note: This model is not applicable to the RBs in the guardband.

·        Send LS to RAN4 to confirm RAN1’s understanding.

Agreement:

For SLS of SBFD in RAN1, candidate values for  at least can be determined based on the assumption that UL receiver sensitivity degradation due to self-interference is 1dB.

·        FFS: UL receiver sensitivity degradation due to self-interference is 0.8dB and 0.1dB

·        The value of  can be calculated based on the UL receiver sensitivity degradation, noise floor of UL subband and maximum gNB DL Tx Power as below

o         

§        For example, for sensitivity degradation of 1dB,  can be computed based on , where N is the noise floor over the UL subband given by , assuming 20MHz UL subband and 5dB noise figure.

·        Note: the feasibility of the determined  values can be discussed separately

·        Companies shall report what values of the individual components are assumed in order to achieve the alpha_SI value corresponding to 1 dB desense

·        Other approaches of determining values for  are not precluded and can be used and reported by companies.

·        Send LS to RAN4 to confirm RAN1’s understanding.

R1-2210416         Summary#3 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution    Moderator (CMCC)

R1-2210417        Summary#4 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution Moderator (CMCC)

From Oct 17th GTW session

Agreement:

For SBFD deployment case 3-2, reuse the traffic model assumptions of SBFD deployment case 1 as much as possible.

·        For comparison, the packet arrival rates are kept the same for each corresponding layer in baseline legacy TDD case (i.e., legacy TDD for both Layer 1 and Layer 2) and SBFD deployment case 3-2 (i.e., legacy TDD for Layer 1 and SBFD for Layer 2) respectively.

·        The UL traffic load and DL traffic load can be independently selected for each layer.

Agreement:

For SBFD deployment case 4, reuse the traffic model assumptions of SBFD deployment case 1 as much as possible.

·        For comparison, the packet arrival rates are kept the same for each corresponding operator in baseline legacy TDD case (i.e., legacy TDD for both Operator#1 and Operator#2) and SBFD deployment case 4 (i.e., legacy TDD for Operator#1 and SBFD for Operator#2) respectively.

·        The UL traffic load and DL traffic load can be independently selected for each operator.

Agreement:

·        Confirm the working assumption made in RAN1#110 on layout related simulation assumptions with modifications (red text).

Agreement:

For UE clustering distribution of Urban Macro and Dense Urban Macro layer,

·        M=10 users per macro TRP (per direction)

o   If each UE is either assigned UL traffic or DL traffic (i.e., option 1 of traffic model), there are 2M users per macro TRP, wherein, M UEs are assigned with UL traffic, and the other M UEs are assigned with DL traffic.

o   If each UE is assigned both UL traffic and DL traffic (i.e., option 2 of traffic model), there are M users per macro TRP.

Agreement:

For UE clustering distribution of Urban Macro and Dense Urban Macro layer, take Alt-2 as baseline and Alt-3 as optional.

Decision: As per decision posted on Oct 17th,

Agreement:

Remove square bracket for the traffic load and update the high traffic load from ~50% to ≥50% (i.e., low (<10%), medium (20%-40%) and high (≥50%)) in previous agreement made in RAN1#110.

Agreement:

Confirm the working assumption for gNB-gNB channel model and gNB-UE channel model made in RAN1#110.

Agreement:

Confirm the working assumption for UE-UE channel model made in RAN1#110.

Agreement:

Adopt the following gNB-UE O2I building penetration loss model:

·        Indoor office: penetration loss is not modelled.

·        Percentage of high loss and low loss building type for Urban Macro / Dense Urban [refer to table 5B of ITU M.2412]: 

o   80% low-loss model

o   20% high-loss model

o   Note: The building type is determined by comparing the random variable with P1, where P1 is the probability of the building type with low loss penetration. If the realization of the random variable is less than P1, the building type is low loss; otherwise the building type is high loss [refer to section 5.3.3 of ITU M.2412].

·        FFS for 2-layer Scenario B

Agreement:

·        Adopt the following table for gNB-gNB channel model for 2-layer Scenario B (HetNet with Urban Macro and Indoor).

Agreement:

·        Adopt the following table for UE-UE channel model for 2-layer Scenario B (HetNet with Urban Macro and Indoor).

Agreement:

For comparison between legacy TDD and SBFD, companies should report the assumption of BS transmit power on DL slots and SBFD slots in SBFD operation.

·        For calibration purpose, assume the BS transmit power spectrum density is kept the same for SBFD operation and legacy TDD operation. BS transmit power is proportional to the RBs used for DL transmission.

Agreement:

For SBFD Deployment Case 4, different power levels in adjacent carriers can be simulated and it is up to company to report the power levels.

R1-2210599         Summary#5 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution    Moderator (CMCC)

R1-2210600         Summary#6 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution    Moderator (CMCC)

R1-2210758        Summary#7 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution Moderator (CMCC)

From Oct 19th GTW session

Agreement

For dynamic TDD evaluations, the following is assumed.

Agreement

RAN1 to conduct a SLS calibration for evaluation of SBFD operation.

• The calibration focuses on the following scenarios of SBFD deployment case 1

o  FR1: Urban Macro

§  FFS: Indoor office

o  FR2: Dense Urban Macro layer

• Regarding metrics used for SLS calibration, consider the following:

o  gNB-UE coupling loss

o  Inter-gNB coupling loss

o  Inter-UE coupling loss

o  Optional: DL SINR for legacy TDD/ DL SINR in DL-only slots for SBFD

o  Optional: DL SINR in SBFD slots

o  Optional: UL SINR for legacy TDD/ UL SINR in UL-only slots for SBFD

o  Optional: UL SINR in SBFD slots

o  FFS: the detailed definitions of the metrics listed above

Agreement

Adopt the following table for gNB-UE channel model for 2-layer Scenario B (HetNet with Urban Macro and Indoor).

Agreement

When UE clustering distribution is used,

• consider the UEs in the same cluster are in the same building
• For Alt-2 (M=20, X=2), consider the UEs in different clusters are in different buildings

Agreement

Remove the square brackets and update the agreement made in RAN1#110 for BS transmit power for legacy TDD as below. For evaluation of SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, the following BS transmit power for legacy TDD are considered. These values are for the single operator case.

Agreement

The following is assumed for SLS calibration of SBFD regarding the BS transmit power for legacy TDD.

Agreement

For evaluation of SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD, companies report the UE antenna configurations used in their simulations. The UE antenna configurations in the following can be considered for calibration purpose.

• FR1:
• 2Tx: (M,N,P,Mg,Ng;Mp,Np) = (1,1,2,1,1;1,1), (dH,dV) = (N/A, N/A)λ, 0°,90° polarization
• 4Rx: (M,N,P,Mg,Ng;Mp,Np) = (1,2,2,1,1;1,2), (dH,dV) = (0.5, N/A)λ, 0°,90° polarization
• FR2-1:
• 4Tx/Rx: (M,N,P,Mg,Ng;Mp,Np) = (2,4,2,1,2;1,1); (dH,dV) = (0.5,0.5)λ,(dg,V,dg,H) = (0, 0)λ, 0°/90° polarization; Θ_mg,ng=90°; Ω_0,1=Ω_0,0+180°
• Note: introduce (Ωmg,ng, Θmg,ng) for orientation of the panel (mg, ng), 0≤mg<Mg, 0≤ng<Ng, where the orientation of the first panel (Ω_0,0, Θ_0,0) is the same as UE orientation, Ω_mg,ng is the array bearing angle and Θ_mg,ng is the array downtilt angle defined in [TR 36.873].

Agreement

For UE clustering distribution of Urban Macro and Dense Urban Macro layer,

• R =[25] m, D_{macro-to-cluster} = 35m+R, D_{inter-cluster} = 2R m.

Note: the UE cluster is totally confined within the macro cell geographical area (i.e. a cluster cannot be partially overlap with adjacent cell area).

For calibration purposes, assume clustering with R=25

R1-2210601        Draft LS on interference modelling for duplex evolution     Moderator (CMCC)

Decision: As per decision posted on Oct 19th, the draft LS is endorsed. Final LS is approved in R1-2210602.

Decision: As per decision posted on Oct 20th,

Agreement

Regarding random and uniform UE distribution in Dense Urban Macro layer scenario and Dense Urban Micro layer scenario for FR2-1, consider the following for UE outdoor/indoor proportion:

·        Baseline: 100% Outdoor without car penetration loss: 3km/h

·        Optional: 20% Outdoor in cars: 30km/h, 80% Indoor in houses: 3km/h

o   Outdoor UEs: 1.5 m;

o   Indoor UEs: 3(n_fl – 1) + 1.5; n_fl ~ uniform(1, N_fl) where N_fl ~ uniform(4,8)

Agreement

For SLS evaluation purposes only, Alt 1/2/4 (SBFD UL subband is about 20% of the channel bandwidth) and SBFD Subband configuration#1 with {DUD} pattern, the following is assumed:

• For FR1

o  Baseline: 100MHz channel bandwidth and 30kHz SCS (273 PRB): < N_D, N_U, N_G > = <104, 55, 5>

o  Optional: 100MHz channel bandwidth and 30kHz SCS (273 PRB): < N_D, N_U, N_G > = <106, 51, 5>

• For FR2

o  Baseline: 100MHz channel bandwidth and 120kHz SCS (66 PRB) < N_D, N_U, N_G > = <25, 14, 1>

o  Optional: 200MHz channel bandwidth and 120kHz SCS (132 PRB): < N_D, N_U, N_G > = <47, 32, 3>

• Other values of < N_D, N_U, N_G > are not precluded and can be reported by companies.

Agreement

For SBFD evaluation, companies should report the guard symbols assumed in the SBFD operation.

Agreement

Regarding Option 2 of UE-UE channel model for Dense urban/Urban macro scenarios, use NLOS when two indoor UEs are in different buildings.

Final summary in R1-2210779.

9.3.2        Subband non-overlapping full duplex

Including study on possible solutions, feasibility, and impact to legacy operation assuming co-existence in co-channel and adjacent channels.

R1-2208403         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   TCL Communication Ltd.

R1-2208409         Discussion on potential enhancement on subband non-overlapping full duplex               Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2208484         Discussion of subband non-overlapping full duplex    ZTE

R1-2208527         Discussion for subband non-overlapping full duplex  New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2208552         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Spreadtrum Communications

R1-2208641         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   vivo

R1-2208857         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   OPPO

R1-2208974         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CATT

R1-2209021         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Fujitsu

R1-2209028         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2209052         Potential solutions for SBFD in NR systems Intel Corporation

R1-2209099         Considerations on Subband Full Duplex TDD Operations        Sony

R1-2209126         Subband non-overlapping full duplex            Lenovo

R1-2209175         Subband non-overlapping full duplex            Ericsson

R1-2209240         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Panasonic

R1-2209284         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   xiaomi

R1-2209336         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CMCC

R1-2209403         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex enhancements        ETRI

R1-2209421         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   NEC

R1-2209583         Views on subband non-overlapping full duplex           Apple

R1-2209729         SBFD feasibility and design considerations for NR duplex evolution     Samsung

R1-2209770         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex for NR      MediaTek Inc.

R1-2209809         Study on Subband non-overlapping full duplex           LG Electronics

R1-2209902         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2209930         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   Sharp

R1-2209983         Feasibility and techniques for Subband non-overlapping full duplex      Qualcomm Incorporated

R1-2210030         Discussion on sub-band non-overlapping full duplex  ITRI

R1-2210042         On subband non-overlapping full duplex for NR         Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2210093         Details of subband non-overlapping full duplex          ASUSTeK

R1-2210108         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   CEWiT

R1-2210138         Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex   WILUS Inc.

R1-2210143         Inter-UE CLI Test Results for NR Duplex Evolution  KDDI Corporation

[110bis-e-R18-Duplex-02] – Yanping (CATT)

Email discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex by October 19

-        Check points: October 14, October 19

R1-2210314        Summary #1 of subband non-overlapping full duplex          Moderator (CATT)

From Oct 11th GTW session

Agreement:

For SBFD operation at least for RRC_CONNECTED state, it is agreed that SBFD operation Alt 4 is the baseline.

·        SBFD operation Alt 4:

o   Both time and frequency locations of subbands for SBFD operation are known to SBFD aware UEs.

o   UE behaviors for non-SBFD aware UEs follow existing specifications.

o   From RAN1 perspective, new UE behaviors can be introduced for SBFD aware UEs based on the time and frequency locations of subbands for SBFD operation.

Agreement:

For semi-static configuration of subband frequency locations for SBFD operation, at least explicit indication of frequency location of UL subband is required.

·        FFS: Whether frequency location of other subbands types is explicitly indicated or implicitly determined.

R1-2210315        Summary #2 of subband non-overlapping full duplex          Moderator (CATT)

From Oct 13th GTW session

Agreement:

Study impact and potential enhancements of CSI-RS resource set frequency domain resource allocation and CSI reporting configuration across non-contiguous DL subbands.

Agreement:

Identify if there are any cases of time domain conflict of UE’s UL and DL operation in the same SBFD symbol for SBFD aware UE

·        If there are, whether/how to avoid/handle such collision cases (as second step)

Agreement:

Study impact/potential enhancements for UE-to-UE CLI-RSSI measurement/report considering non-contiguous measurement resource in frequency.

Agreement:

Study whether SBFD operation in SSB symbols is supported or not.

R1-2210316        Summary #3 of subband non-overlapping full duplex          Moderator (CATT)

From Oct 17th GTW session

Agreement:

For SBFD operation within a TDD carrier, it is agreed that SBFD scheme within a single configured DL and UL BWP pair with aligned center frequencies is the baseline.

Agreement:

The maximum number of UL subbands for SBFD operation in an SBFD symbol (excluding legacy UL symbol) within a TDD carrier is one for the study in RAN1.

·        The UL subband can be located at one side of the carrier.

·        The UL subband can be located at the middle part of the carrier, subject to RAN4’s study and conclusion

Note: RAN1 considers the above two possibilities unless RAN4 concludes that any one is infeasible.

Note: Two UL subbands for SBFD operation in an SBFD symbol within a TDD carrier due to SBFD operation in legacy UL symbols is subject to further RAN1 discussions which is 2^nd priority as per RAN guidance.

Send an LS to RAN4 to inform the above agreement. If RAN4 has response, it will be taken into account but in the meanwhile, RAN1 work will continue based on the above.

Decision: As per decision posted on Oct 18th,

Agreement

For semi-static configuration of subband time locations for SBFD operation, it is agreed that explicit configuration of SBFD subband time locations within a period is the baseline.

R1-2210670        Draft LS on maximum number of UL subbands for duplex evolution               Moderator (CATT)

Decision: As per decision posted on Oct 19th, the draft LS is endorsed. Final LS is approved in R1-2210671.

Final summary in R1-2210317.

9.3.33        Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD

Including study on possible solutions, feasibility, and impact to legacy operation assuming co-existence in co-channel and adjacent channels.

R1-2208404         Potential Enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD       TCL Communication Ltd.

R1-2208410         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2208485         Discussion of enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD             ZTE

R1-2208553         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            Spreadtrum Communications

R1-2208642         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      vivo

R1-2208726         Study on potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD       New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2208858         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            OPPO

R1-2208975         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            CATT

R1-2209029         Potential enhancements on dynamic and flexible TDD              InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2209053         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      Intel Corporation

R1-2209100         Considerations on Flexible/Dynamic TDD    Sony

R1-2209176         Potential enhancements of dynamic TDD      Ericsson

R1-2209220         Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD      Lenovo

R1-2209285         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic TDD           xiaomi

R1-2209337         Discussion on potential enhancements on flexible/dynamic TDD            CMCC

R1-2209420         Views on enhancements of dynamic/flexible TDD      NEC

R1-2209584         Views on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD    Apple

R1-2209730         ?Dynamic and flexible TDD for NR duplex evolution Samsung

R1-2209771         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            MediaTek Inc.

R1-2209810         Study on Potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD     LG Electronics

R1-2209903         Discussion on potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2209984         On potential enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD Qualcomm Incorporated

R1-2210043         Dynamic TDD enhancements          Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2210109         Discussion on enhancements on dynamic/flexible TDD            CEWiT

[110bis-e-R18-Duplex-03] – Hyunsoo (LGE)

Email discussion on enhancements for dynamic/flexible TDD by October 19

-        Check points: October 14, October 19

R1-2210403        Summary #1 of potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD     Moderator (LG Electronics)

From Oct 11th GTW session

Conclusion

No further discussion for potential enhancement to Rel-16 RIM for gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI handling which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD.

Conclusion

No further discussion for sensing based mechanism for gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI handling which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD.

Conclusion

No further discussion for sensing based mechanism (i.e. LBT) for UE-to-UE co-channel CLI handling which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD.

Decision: As per email decision posted on Oct 15th,

Agreement

For gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI measurement, the potential benefit of uplink resources muting can be studied further.

Note: Proponents of uplink resource muting are encouraged to provide evaluation result for comparison of performance between two cases when uplink resource muting based gNB-gNB CLI handling schemes including both UE transparent and non-UE transparent schemes is applied or not.

R1-2210404        Summary #2 of potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD     Moderator (LG Electronics)

From Oct 17th GTW session

Agreement

For gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI measurement, consider as baseline reusing existing DL channel(s)/signal(s)/ measurement_resource(s)

·        For example, SSB, NZP/ZP-CSI-RS, DMRS for PDCCH/PDSCH, CSI-IM, RSSI measurement resource, etc.

·        FFS: Which type of DL channel(s)/signal(s) can be used for gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI measurement

·        FFS: How resources are used/configured

Agreement

For UE-to-UE co-channel CLI measurement, consider as baseline reusing existing channel(s)/signal(s)/measurement_resource(s)

·        For example, SRS resources defined in Rel-16 for SRS-RSRP measurement, CLI-RSSI resources defined in Rel-16 for CLI-RSSI measurement

o   FFS required potential enhancements

R1-2210405        Summary #3 of potential enhancement on dynamic/flexible TDD     Moderator (LG Electronics)

From Oct 19th GTW session

Agreement

For UE-to-UE co-channel CLI handling, study L1/L2 based UE-to-UE CLI measurement and reporting

Ÿ   Note: Accounting for UE processing/reporting delay – companies to share their assumptions

Ÿ   Note: Proponents are encouraged to provide the mechanism of L1/L2 based CLI measurement and reporting, and to provide the benefits of L1/L2 based CLI measurement and reporting compared with existing L3 CLI/CSI measurement and report with evaluation result

Ÿ   Note: Accounting for information exchange delay between gNBs (if applicable)

Agreement

For details of spatial domain coordination method for gNB-to-gNB co-channel CLI handling, at least followings can be studied.

Ÿ   Recommended/restricted Beams between gNBs

Ÿ   Beam nulling between gNBs

Ÿ   Beam pairing between gNBs

Ÿ   Other schemes are not precluded.

Conclusion

Under AI 9.3.3, no further discussion on UE side advanced receiver for UE-to-UE co-channel CLI handling which can be specific for dynamic/flexible TDD and/or common for both SBFD and dynamic/flexible TDD

Final summary in R1-2210406.

 RAN1#111

9.3       Study on evolution of NR duplex operation

Please refer to RP-222110 for detailed scope of the SI.

[111-R18-Duplex] – Fei (CMCC)

To be used for sharing updates on online/offline schedule, details on what is to be discussed in online/offline sessions, tdoc number of the moderator summary for online session, etc

R1-2212374         TR 38.858 v0.1.0 for study on evolution of NR duplex operation            CMCC

9.3.1        Evaluation on NR duplex evolution

Including deployment scenario, evaluation methodology, and performance evaluation results assuming.

R1-2210876         Discussion on evaluation and methodologies on evolution of NR duplex operation               Huawei, HiSilicon

R1-2210933         Discussion for Evaluation on NR duplex evolution     New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.

R1-2211004         Evaluation on NR duplex evolution vivo

R1-2212561         Discussion of evaluation on NR duplex evolution       ZTE        (rev of R1-2211042)

R1-2211195         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      CATT

R1-2211232         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      Spreadtrum Communications, BUPT

R1-2211361         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      xiaomi

R1-2211397         Evaluation of NR Duplex Evolution              Intel Corporation

R1-2211484         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      OPPO

R1-2211679         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      CMCC

R1-2211708         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex operation      KT Corp.

R1-2211736         Discussion on evaluation for NR-duplex       InterDigital, Inc.

R1-2211749         Evaluation of NR SBFD operation  NEC

R1-2211783         Evaluation methodology for NR duplex evolution      Kumu Networks

R1-2211811         On evaluations for NR duplex evolution       Apple

R1-2211921         Study on Evaluation for NR duplex evolution             LG Electronics

R1-2212572         Evaluation of NR duplex evolution Ericsson (rev of R1-2211941)

R1-2211982         Discussion on evaluation on NR duplex evolution      NTT DOCOMO, INC.

R1-2212042         Discussion on evaluation for NR duplex evolution     Samsung

R1-2212114         On Deployment scenarios and evaluation Methodology for NR duplex evolution               Qualcomm Incorporated

R1-2212248         Deployment scenarios and evaluation methodology for NR duplex evolution               MediaTek Inc.

R1-2212283         On the evaluation methodology for NR duplexing enhancements           Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell

R1-2212450         Evaluation of NR duplex evolution Charter Communications, Inc

R1-2211678        Summary#1 on evaluation on NR duplex evolution Moderator (CMCC)

From Nov 15th session

Conclusion

For evaluation of SBFD Deployment Case 4, scenarios other than Urban Macro (FR1) and Dense Urban Macro layer (FR2-1) are low priority and it is up to companies to submit results for other scenarios.

Agreement

Consider following for the definition of coupling loss ( from Tx antenna port p of transmitter A to Rx antenna port u of receiver B:

If both large scale fading and small scale fading are modelled, the coupling loss from Tx antenna port p of transmitter A to Rx antenna port u of receiver B is defined in formula (1) which is based on formula (B.1-2) in TR 37.910.

If only large scale fading is modelled, the coupling loss from Tx antenna port p of transmitter A to Rx antenna port u of receiver B is defined in formula (2).

           (3)

Where

·         () represents a complex weight vector used for virtualization of Tx antenna port p of transmitter , and  () represents a complex weight vector used for virtualization of Rx antenna port u of receiver .

·        Formula (3) can be understood according to equation (7.5-29) in TR38.901.

Agreement

Regarding the modelling of inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI agreed in RAN1#110bis for the case that only large scale fading is modelled and small scale fading is not modelled for gNB-gNB co-channel channel model,  can be modelled as below

wherein,

·         is the number of Tx antenna ports of BS , and  is the number of Rx antenna ports of BS .

Agreement

Regarding the modelling of inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI agreed in RAN1#110bis for the case that both large scale fading and small scale fading are modelled for gNB-gNB co-channel channel model,

·        For , it is up to companies to report other values of  and the corresponding applicable conditions.

Agreement

For inter-site gNB-gNB adjacent-channel CLI modeling, reuse similar method as inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI modeling with gNB ACLR for TX leakage and gNB ACS for Receiver impairment.

• For SLS in RAN1, if only large scale fading is modelled and small scale fading is not modelled for inter-site gNB-gNB adjacent-channel channel model, the power of inter-site gNB-gNB adjacent-channel CLI experienced by the victim gNB on each receiver chain at one UL RB can be modelled as

•  is the power of inter-site gNB-gNB adjacent-channel CLI from gNB  to gNB  on each receiver chain at one UL RB (linear value)
•  is DL transmission power of gNB  across all transmit chains over all DL RBs (linear value).
• is the coupling loss between gNB  and gNB  (linear value), accounting for beamforming at the aggressor gNB and victim gNB.
•  is the total number of RBs of the channel bandwidth (e.g., 100MHz for FR1) of the aggressor gNB
• Note:   (i.e., gNB ACLR) and  (i.e., gNB ACS) are in linear scale. With this assumption, in absence of further RAN4 inputs, gNB ACLR and gNB ACS in current specification are used for both inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI modeling and inter-site gNB-gNB adjacent-channel CLI modeling. The values of  and  used in inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel and adjacent-channel CLI modeling can be revisited based on further RAN4 inputs.
• Note: This model is not applicable to the RBs in the guard band between the two adjacent channels.

Agreement

For UE-UE adjacent-channel CLI modelling, reuse similar method as inter-site gNB-gNB co-channel inter-subband CLI modeling with UE ACIR used in Rel-16 CLI study as below:

• For SLS in RAN1, if only large scale fading is modelled and small scale fading is not modelled for UE-UE adjacent-channel channel model, the power of UE-UE adjacent-channel CLI experienced by the victim UE on each receiver chain at one DL RB can be modelled as

•  is the power of UE-UE adjacent-channel CLI from UE  to UE  on each receiver chain at one DL RB (linear value)
•  is UL transmission power of UE  across all transmit chains over all UL RBs (linear value).
• is the coupling loss between UE  and UE  (linear value), accounting for analog beamforming at the aggressor UE and victim UE.
•  is the total number of RBs of the channel bandwidth (e.g., 100MHz for FR1) of the aggressor UE
• Note:  are in linear scale. In RAN4 reply LS, RAN4 agree on UE ACLR based model on TX and UE ACS based model on RX which is the same ACIR model as Rel-16 CLI study as starting point.
• Note: This ACIR-based model is not applicable to the guard band between the two adjacent channels

Agreement

For any deployment cases where clustering is not used and where M UEs are distributed per direction,

·        If each UE is either assigned UL traffic or DL traffic (i.e., option 1 of traffic model), there are 2M UEs, wherein, M UEs are assigned with UL traffic, and the other M UEs are assigned with DL traffic.

·        If each UE is assigned both UL traffic and DL traffic (i.e., option 2 of traffic model), there are M UEs.

Agreement

For UE clustering distribution for FR1, R=25m. Evaluation results for other values of R can be submitted.

Agreement

Regarding SLS calibration, consider the following metrics:

·        For CDF of gNB-UE coupling loss, only the coupling losses between each UE and its serving cell are collected for CDF statistic.

o        and  are determined by selecting the best beam pair of the UE and its serving cell with the criteria of maximizing receive power of the UE.

·        For CDF of gNB-gNB coupling loss,

o   For one SLS drop, generate channels among gNBs, calculate and collect the coupling loss for each gNB pair

§  The two gNBs in each gNB pair should be from different sites.

§        Both  and  are randomly selected for calculating the coupling loss for each gNB pair.

o   Companies to run enough SLS drops and report the number of SLS drops when plotting the CDF using the collected coupling losses.

·        For CDF of UE-UE coupling loss,

o   For one SLS drop, drop UEs in the network and generate channels among UEs, calculate and collect the coupling loss for each UE pair

§  If the 2D distance between two UEs in a UE pair is larger than 50m, the UE pair is not considered for statistic.

§        For each UE,  and  is determined based on the best beam pair of the UE and its serving cell.

o   Companies to run enough SLS drops and report the number of SLS drops when plotting the CDF using the collected coupling losses.

·        Note1: Formula (2) for CL with averaging across all the Tx/Rx ports is used for coupling loss calculation above, i.e.,

·        Note 2: The beams for above cases are selected based on a defined set of beams for FR1 and FR2 in the table for calibration assumptions.

Agreement

For SLS calibration, RAN1 agrees to use the following assumptions.

·        For assumptions that are agreed with both baseline assumptions and optional assumptions, the baseline assumptions are used for calibration