Reply LS on the RAN simulation assumptions for ULBC
Proposal 1: RAN1 generally agrees with the overall set of parameters selected by SA4, with the following comments:
On the modulation order, RAN1 would like to highlight that MCS indices 0 and 1 use pi/2 BPSK for single tone transmissions. It is up to SA4 to decide whether to evaluate pi/2 BPSK with MCS indices 0 and 1.
For the downlink CNR, the relevant UE parameter is noise figure (and/or G/T) instead of transmit power. RAN1 recommends SA4 corrects the following sentence:
DL CNR=-3.3dB, 0dBi UE antenna gain, 15kHz SCS, 12 tones, 1 UE receive antenna, noise figure of 7dB.
If SA4 wants to evaluate 40ms bundling, RAN1 specifications may support this case by assuming 15kHz SCS (single and multi-tone) in the uplink. It is up to SA4 whether to consider this case in their evaluations.
RAN1/2 have not yet started the work on designing SPS. Therefore, RAN1 currently cannot confirm whether the example frame structure for SPS (related to Figure 5.2.2.3-2 and associated text) will be supported.
In previous RAN1 evaluations related to voice, RAN1 has considered 2% BLER as the target performance metric. It is up to SA4 to decide what values to use in their evaluations.
Power classes are to be confirmed by RAN4.
Although the example Figure 5.2.2.3-1 is supportable by RAN1 specifications in most scenarios, it may not be supportable in the case where the cell is very large (e.g. >3000km), when the UE does not support TA report and the network does not support UE-specific K-offset. The example Figure 5.2.2.3-1 itself also requires the UE to be configured with two HARQ processes and with HARQ feedback disabled.
Proposal 2: RAN1 considers that the value of -31.6dB/K may be used by SA4 in their evaluations. Some companies in RAN1 consider that values higher than -31.6dB/K can be supported in commercial implementations, but RAN1 could not reach consensus on these values.