Re: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Discussion on NE #1

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Dear Jaesun and all,

Thanks for initiating the discussion.

In my opionions, Option 1 would increase overhead significantly if ranging parameters are assigned specifically.

Also, it leads to more complicated system design as the BS needs to instantaneously determine all ranging parameters for each device or group, the computational complexity of which could be a heavy burden.

For Option 3, although index assignment is much simpler, the overhead required by sending the table via broadcast message is too large. Furthermore, the devices or groups that are already in idle mode may not be able to receive such broadcast message.

Therefore, I think it is more practical to adopt Option 2. With a pre-defined table, heavy overheads are not required and index assignments can be done simply through paging messages.

Thanks and Best Regards

Ping-Heng Kuo

寄件者: 차재선 [jscha@etri.re.kr]
寄件日期: 2011年02月22日下午 02:06
收件者: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
主旨: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Discussion on NE #1

Dear all

I'm Jaesun Cha from ETRI.

As all of you know, we have only one PWR CC on coming Thursday before #72 meeting. But, we still have many open issues on NE #1. If we do not provide any more harmonized texts before the next CC, we can't expect much progress on these issues in the next CC. So, I would like to propose to restart the discusson on NE #1.

Kiseon already listed up all open issues in contribution #0041. In my understanding, group agreed to assign different ranging parameters to M2M devices or M2M group for congestion control during network reentry from idle mode. But, contents of ranging parameters and purpose of assignment of different ranging parameters are still open. Some people considers an allocation of additional ranging channels or codes to give an priority to some M2M devices or M2M groups while other people consider only a distribution of ranging access without allocating additional ranging resources.

Regardless of contents and purpose, we have to decide how an ABS assigns different ranging parameters to M2M devices because the assignment is already agreed in the previous CC.

There are several contributions which deal with this issue (0008, 0009, 0017, 0026, 0028, 0035). Contributions 0009, 0017 and 0035 propose to define a reference table which define relevant ranging parameters. The other contributions does not provide any description on a reference table but propose to assign a specific ranging parameter using a certain message. Now, we can narrow down the proposals to 3 options.

1. No reference table for ranging parameters and assignment of a specific ranging parameter

2. A pre-defined reference table for ranging parameters and assignment of an index.

3. A reference table in a broadcast message and assignment of an index.

I would like to header member's opinion on these options. Once we reach on agreement on one of these options, then we can go to the next step. For example, how to assign a ranging parameter or an index? (paing message or dedicated message), What are ranging parameters?

Please, share your opinion on these options for a productive discussion.

Best Regards and Thanks,

Jaesun Cha

Senior Engineer

Wireless Access Technology Research Team

Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966

-----------------------------------------------------

-----원본 메시지-----
From: "Kiseon Ryu" <kiseon.ryu@LGE.COM>
From Date: 2011-02-18 오후 6:36:26
To: "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Meeting Minutes of PWR RG CC#2

Dear all,

I updated the consolidated contribution as C80216p-rg-11_0032r5 to include the proposed text in C80216p-rg-11_0035 (submitted by Jaesun) and the updated text in C80216p-rg-11_0028r1.

Regards,

Kiseon Ryu

PWR RG Chair

From: Kiseon Ryu [mailto:kiseon.ryu@LGE.COM]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 4:58 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Meeting Minutes of PWR RG CC#2

Dear 16p members,

The meeting minutes for 2^nd PWR RG CC are as follows:

1. Email discussion summary (80216p-rg-11_0041) was reviewed.

2. Harmonized contribution on Idle Mode Operation (C80216p-rg-11_0036r1) was reviewed.

A. Members agreed to the blue text in the contribution as the consensus text

B. Consensus text will be included without bracket in the updated document for consolidated contribution.

3. Harmonized contribution on NE#2 (C80216p-rg-11_0028r1) and NE#1(C80216p-rg-11_0040) were reviewed.

A. Some members raised concern on NE#2 (C80216p-rg-11_0028r1) as follow.

i. If BS does not know when M2M devices perform network re-entry, static and periodic assignment of dedicated ranging resource can increase resource overhead.

B. Some members raised concern on NE#1(C80216p-rg-11_0040) as follows.

i. If the M2M device receives multicast traffic indication in paging message, it does not have to perform network re-entry to receive the multicast traffic. In this case, access restriction has no meaning.

ii. Ranging abort in RNG-ACK message can be used for this kind of access restriction.

4. Key issues for NE#1 and NE#2 were discussed.

A. Some members shared their views on the issue of the priority based ranging parameter differentiation

i. We need to analyze the gain of priority based ranging parameter differentiation.

ii. In the case of predictable re-entry of M2M devices, ranging parameter can be different to M2M devices/groups to distribute the re-entry load.

iii. Ranging parameter means not only ranging parameter values (e.g., opportunity window, backoff window, etc.) but also assignment of dedicate ranging resource to M2M devices/groups.

B. Members agreed to the high level text for NE#1 and NE#2 below and it will be included without bracket in the updated document.

i. Ranging parameters may be different to M2M devices or M2M groups.

C. Through the email discussion, detailed text will be discussed further.

5. DC#1 (C80216p-rg-11_0037) were reviewed.

A. Some members raised concern on the gain of device collaboration.

I updated the consolidated contribution C80216p-rg-11_0032r4 based on the 2^nd PWR RG CC result.

The third and final call for PWR RG will be on Thursday, March 24, 2011, 8AM-10AM US Central Time.

Any comment or question will be welcomed.

Regards

Kiseon Ryu

PWR RG Chair