Please refer to RP-230736 for detailed scope of the SI.
R1-2304176 Session notes for 9.15 (Study on Self-Evaluation towards the 3GPP submission of a IMT-2020 Satellite Radio Interface Technology) Ad-Hoc Chair (Huawei)
R1-2302871 SI work plan for Study on self-evaluation towards the IMT-2020 submission of the 3GPP Satellite Radio Interface Technology Ericsson
R1-2302693 Considerations on evaluation methodology for IMT2020 Satellite RIT CATT,CAICT
R1-2302774 Discussion on self-evaluation methodology for IMT-2020 satellite radio interface OPPO
R1-2303157 On evaluation methodology for IMT-2020 Satellite Samsung
R1-2303346 Evaluation methodology for IMT-2020 satellite MediaTek Inc.
R1-2303619 eMBB Spectral Efficiency SLS parameters and assumptions Qualcomm Incorporated
R1-2303626 Discussion on simulation assumptions for self-evaluation of IMT-2020 satellite radio interface technology Panasonic
[112bis-e-R18-Sat_Eval-01] Alberto (Qualcomm)
Email discussion on evaluation methodology by April 26th
- To be kicked off after the first online session
- Check points: April 21, April 26
From April 17th GTW session
R1-2304008 Feature lead summary #1 on evaluation methodology for IMT-2020 Satellite Moderator (Qualcomm)
Decision: The document is noted.
R1-2302873 Assumptions for the Self-Evaluation for the Satellite Component of IMT-2020 Ericsson, Qualcomm, Thales
Provides basic simulation assumptions to be used for the self-evaluation of peak data rate and peak spectral efficiency.
Decision: The document is noted.
R1-2302384 Evaluation methodology of IMT-2020 satellite Huawei, HiSilicon
· Proposal 1: Satellite self-evaluation focuses on transparent payload only. If RAN can check and confirm regenerative payload be supported by Rel-17 specifications, then the evaluation results for transparent payload can be used as a reference for regenerative payload for ITU submission.
· Proposal 2: The channel model in section 6 of TR 38.811 can be viewed as an adaptation for satellite evaluation on top of terrestrial evaluation and can be used for satellite self-evaluation.
· Proposal 3: Reuse the wrap around mechanism in section 6.1.1.1 of TR 38.821 for satellite self-evaluation.
· Proposal 4: The additional parameters listed in Table 3 are added on top of example parameters in section 8.2.3 of Report ITU-R M.2514 for Rural-eMBB-s evaluation.
· Proposal 5: Companies are encouraged to provide calibration curves aligned with TR 38.821 calibration case 9 or case 10 when providing satellite self-evaluation results. Then there is no need for additional cross-company calibration.
· Proposal 6: Both non-full buffer simulation and full-buffer simulation defined in section 7.1.3 of Report ITU-R M.2412 are used for satellite connection density evaluation, with the following adaptation to satellite self-evaluation:
o Traffic model for QoS calculation is defined in Table 1 in section 8.2.3 of Report ITU-R M.2514.
o Requirement for evaluation is defined in section 7.2.8 of Report ITU-R M.2514.
· Proposal 7: The calculation method of pre-processing SINR from TR 37.910 is reused for system-level simulation followed by link-level simulation.
· Proposal 8: Additional parameters listed in Table 5 are added on top of example parameters in section 8.2.3 of Report ITU-R M.2514 for Rural-mMTC-s evaluation.
· Proposal 9: The evaluation methodology defined in section 7.1.4 of Report ITU-R M.2412 is reused to evaluate mobility, with the same evaluation parameters and configurations selected for the evaluation of average spectral efficiency, and with speed of 250 km/h.
· Proposal 10: The additional parameters listed in Table 3 are added on top of example parameters in section 8.2.3 of Report ITU-R M.2514 for Rural-HRC-s evaluation, as that for Rural-eMBB-s.
· Proposal 11: For peak spectral efficiency assessment, the generic formula defined in TR 37.910 can be reused, and the highest coding rate, maximum modulation order and maximum number of layers need to take into consideration of the achievable values based on, e.g., link budget analysis of CNR.
· Proposal 12: The effect of earth curvature on area calculation needs to be considered for evaluating area traffic capacity.
· Proposal 13: Control plane latency, user plane latency and mobility interruption time should be discussed by RAN2.
· Proposal 14: Energy efficiency should be discussed by RAN2.
Decision: The document is noted.
R1-2302435 Discussion on self-evaluation methodology for potential 3GPP submission of IMT-2020 Satellite Radio Interface Technology Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell
· Proposal 1: The evaluation of the peak spectral efficiency considers a UE at nadir and in LOS conditions without presence of interference for the relevant satellite deployment cases.
· Proposal 2: The evaluation of the peak data rate considers a UE at nadir and in LOS conditions for the relevant satellite deployment cases.
· Proposal 3: The evaluation of the control and user plane latencies should focus on LEO scenarios.
· Proposal 4: The evaluation of the mobility interruption time should be based on cells from the same gNB or co-located gNBs and LEO scenario assumptions.
· Proposal 5: Evaluation assumptions should include the realistic UE handset antenna gain of -5.5 dB
· Proposal 6: The scenarios are limited to transparent architecture without ISL.
· Proposal 7: RAN1 to decide that the eMBB-s simulations focus on LEO600, Set-1 and handheld UEs.
· Proposal 8: Connection density for eMTC should focus on the maximum density, limited by the RACH capacity.
· Proposal 9: The evaluation should focus on handheld UEs with the assumptions from 38.821 Table 6.1.1.1-3.
· Proposal 10: Under the evaluation it may be considered to assume a UE with full availability of UE capabilities such as e.g. support of 32 HARQ processes.
· Proposal 11: RAN1 to discuss whether 100% LOS can be considered or whether a model like in [5] should be included in the evaluation.
Decision: The document is noted.
R1-2303299 Discussion on the evaluation methodology of Self-Evaluation towards the 3GPP submission of a IMT-2020 Satellite ZTE
· Proposal 1: The test environment is Rural for all usage scenarios, and channel model for Rural in sector 6.6.6 and 6.6.7.2 in [3] can be used.
· Proposal 2: Evaluation for handheld terminals and S-band should be considered as the baseline.
· Proposal 3: The assumption listed in Table 1-4 should be considered as the baseline of parameters for self-evaluation.
· Proposal 4: For peak data rate and peak spectral efficiency evaluation, VSAT and Ka-band with up to 400 MHz should be considered. For other characteristics, handheld and S-band with up to 30 MHz should be considered.
Decision: The document is noted.
R1-2304009 Feature lead summary #2 on evaluation methodology for IMT-2020 Satellite Moderator (Qualcomm)
R1-2304118 Feature lead summary #3 on evaluation methodology for IMT-2020 Satellite Moderator (Qualcomm)
Decision: Asper email decision posted on April 24th,
Agreement
The proposals and proposed working assumption in Section 2 of R1-2304118 are endorsed.
Decision: Asper email decision posted on April 25th,
Agreement
Signals from one satellite to a UE would be seen as site-specific according to Table 7.6.3.4-1 of TR 38.901.
R1-2304123 Feature lead summary #4 on evaluation methodology for IMT-2020 Satellite Moderator (Qualcomm)
Decision: Asper email decision posted on April 27th,
Agreement
The proposal in Section 2 of R1-2304123 is agreed.
Placeholder only. No contributions in RAN1#112bis-e.
Placeholder only. No contributions in RAN1#112bis-e.