IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [5gangip] 6G White Paper

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9695A3A09A8 for <5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 02:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WxqjzDtM5Gve for <5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 02:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5226D3A099C for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 02:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0699OY6v007404 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:24:34 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E850204734 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:24:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3430A203C88 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:24:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0699OYdi023879 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:24:34 +0200
To: 5gangip@ietf.org
References: <CAC8QAcd8FbzngiNDpU+S2mOvqHkzmPeMvE7_1OcRXuaJRG6fZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1f6a01d9-6992-76c2-914c-496d87342ee1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 11:24:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcd8FbzngiNDpU+S2mOvqHkzmPeMvE7_1OcRXuaJRG6fZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/5gangip/EQ-BODanjdaI_8NHdZsk_OvIkvg>
Subject: Re: [5gangip] 6G White Paper
X-BeenThere: 5gangip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of implications of the upcoming 5th Generation \(fixed and\) Mobile communication systems on IP protocols." <5gangip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/5gangip>, <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/5gangip/>
List-Post: <mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip>, <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 09:24:38 -0000


Le 03/07/2020 à 17:14, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> Hi all, Please check this out:
> 
> http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526226842.pdf

> for holograms and holographic type communications

It's good to try to come up with the relevant scenarios and use-cases
that 6G might offer advantages to.

My question is, why the paper does not talk 8K in the use-cases for 6G?

I would like to mention here that holography conferences already
happened, at least in year 2017 for a conference of a political campaign
where I live.  It was not on cellular networks, but on regular fiber.
They did not need 4G or 5G for that.

I do not know why would one put holographical communications (i.e. a
high bandwidth stream of data from a multiple camera sensor to a
sophisticated 3D projector) on 6G?

Holography needs a source of about 3 cameras situated at a distance,
maybe a few meters to create that 3D effect.  The smallest rig I saw
recently used 2 cameras at about 20cm distance on a big DSLR (digital
single lens reflex camera).

That is very much larger than what a smartphone is: maybe 10cm size.
And 6G is primarily for smartphones, I think.

I think there is no smartphone planned to do holographical live capture.
  Because one couldnt have a portable smartphone that does holographical
projection.  That is way beyond imagination.

On another hand, there are new small cameras coming on the market, which
are not holography, but which do 8K live video capture.  8K is the
natural evolution of 4K from UHD, HD, HD Ready, SD, VGA, EGA and CGA.

There are also smartphones whose resolution increases regularly.

If a smartphone with 8K capability comes on the market and wants to
transmit that on cellular, it might indeed need more bandwidth than 5G
has to offer.

So, my question is, why the paper does not talk 8K in the use-cases for 6G?

Alex

> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 5gangip mailing list 
> 5gangip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email