RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff Ad-Hoc Inputs
Hi, Itzik,
I agree that "BS communications" should be part of 16e activity, but it
should belong to "recommendation" category.
Regards,
Lei
-----Original Message-----
From: Itzik Kitroser [mailto:itzikk@runcom.co.il]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 10:58 AM
To: 'Lei Wang'
Cc: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff Ad-Hoc Inputs
Hello Lei,
Thank you for your remarks, I have taken your and Gordon's comments and
uploading a new version.
Regarding your comment about BSs communicating through backbone:
>Section 4.3 BSs Communicating through Backbone
>This is an important issue to support mobility.
>However, since it is through backbone, then it is out of the scope of the
standard,
>because we're working on the "air interface". I would like to suggest to
make it as
>"recommendation" and put it into a separate document or section or
appendix, just like 802.11f.
Our group should provide a normative text regarding BS communication in
context of handoff.
It is a requirement for interoperability.
I don't care where it should come, but I think that it should be part of the
IEE802.16e activity.
Regards,
Itzik.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Lei
>Wang
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:11 PM
>To: 'itzikk@runcom.co.il'
>Cc: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff Ad-Hoc Inputs
>
>
>Hi, Itzik,
>
>Here're my comments on the topic list you sent out before:
>* section 2 Types of HO
> The usage of "intra" and "inter" seems pretty confusing. To me,
>"intra" means "within", while "inter" means "between". So, section 2.1
>should be "intra BS handoff"; section 2.2 should be "inter BS
>handoff", and
>section 2.3 should be "inter systems handoff".
>* section 4.3 BSs Communicating through Backbone
> This is an important issue to support mobility.
>However, since it is
>through backbone, then it is out of the scope of the standard,
>because we're
>working on the "air interface". I would like to suggest to make it as
>"recommendation" and put it into a separate document or
>section or appendix,
>just like 802.11f.
>
>Lei
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Itzik Kitroser [mailto:itzikk@runcom.co.il]
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:10 AM
>To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
>Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff Ad-Hoc Inputs
>
>
>Dear Handoff Ad-hoc members,
>
>I have just wanted to remind you that tomorrow is the first submission
>deadline for Handoff suggestions to the IEEE802.16e.
>
>I hope that some of you have inputs, I don't expect a full
>proposal, partial
>text that deals with subset of the items I have brought is
>fine as well.
>
>
>Best Regards,
>Itzik.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Itzik Kitroser [mailto:itzikk@runcom.co.il]
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:07 PM
>>
>>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>I'm happy to announce on the opening of the
>>IEEE802.16e Handoff ad hoc group.
>>
>>As you might notice, I have put a preamble '[Handoff]'
>>at the beginning of the subject line.
>>Please use it, since it may ease on email
>>processing for some of the participants.
>>
>>In the attached document you will find some starting points
>>I have composed based on the contributions given to
>>the IEEE802.16e group concerning this issue.
>>The main focus of this group should be on MAC and management issues,
>>although requirements to the PHY layer and interaction
>>issues should not be avoided.
>>
>>I would like to receive feedback on the list of
>>topics (i.e. missing items, redundant, not relevant etc.)
>>and call for initial drafts on the handoff subject.
>>The deadline for the initial drafts, as defined in the document,
>>is two weeks from today, 04/02/03.
>>
>>Please review the proposed schedule presented in the document,
>>again, any comments/suggestions are welcome.
>>
>>The IEEE802.16e has a tight schedule, and therefore the handoff ad hoc
>>group has a tight schedule as well. The prime objective of
>>this group is
>>to try and provide text to the standard dealing with the
>handoff issue.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Itzik Kitroser
>>
>>
>>