| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
As was
mentioned at the meeting and as Itzak is implying, we need to be careful with
our terminology. “Hard” and “Soft”
handoffs have specific meanings in the mobile industry. We should adopt the same. Brian -----Original
Message----- Dear Avi and all, I agree with Avi. I thought
that "soft" and "hard" terms should be provided
with relevant context in order to prevent misinterpretation of the
terms. The items 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
were a way to insert the "soft" and "hard" HO as given by
Vladimir Yanover in C80216e-03/01 without stating the
explicitly "soft" and "hard" terms. There was no
explicit decision to exclude soft handoff, and I think that considering
soft handoff is relevant and should be made, by providing with it the
relevant context. Itzik Kitroser -----Original Message----- Dear Handoff ad-hoccers I have been looking at the document
Itzik had complied. I haven't seen any mentioning of the possibility of
soft handoff. Was there any decision to exclude it? Soft handoff is
not necessarily CDMA, you know, and it might provide an advantage. Avi Freedman |