Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Pre-meeting notes
Hi Jerry,
Thank you for your note.
I agree with you that some aspects of the "Management" section deal with specific requirements. I think we can try to describe broader usage for management. One point could be to describe route management in the sense of set up and configuration in the "Management" section as opposed to the "Types of Routes" section.
I think we will be able to get a better idea during the meeting.
Cheers,
Saravanan
-----Original Message-----
From: Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:41 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Pre-meeting notes
Saravanan,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts before the meeting. I would like to encourage others to do the same, so that we can focus our discussion in the meetings on specific points of difference or contention. We will discuss all of your points in the meeting as part of our discussion of the document outline.
Here are some thoughts about the points that you have raised:
1) Types of Routes
I was envisioning that section to describe the types of routes available in the topology, rather than the method in which they are set up and managed. Perhaps the name that I used (Types of Routes) is not the right name. There were contributions that talked about asymmetric routes (DL and UL follow different route) as well as contributions that discussed having the topology be a pure tree (PMP) vs. allowing redundant routes (partial mesh between RSs).
2) I had left out the Management section because the contents of the section in contribution 026 was more along the lines of technical requirements and no other contributions addressed this. We should discuss during the meeting what type of content would go into the section.
Regards,
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Saravanan Govindan [mailto:Saravanan.Govindan@SG.PANASONIC.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:26 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Pre-meeting notes
Dear All,
Following from Jerry's well-structured document, I would like to put out the following notes. I hope to discuss these further during the teleconference.
1. Types of Routes (Section 5.3)
I think the contributions relating to this section seem to broadly fall in 2 categories;
i. Routes managed centrally from the MMR-BS (e.g. PMP)
ii. Routes managed in distributed fashion by individual RS (e.g. Mesh)
Deployments with the first category of routes will prefer simplified management and greater control over data flow. And deployments with the second category of routes will be suited for dynamic conditions.
2. Section on RS management
I think Section 5.5 from C802.16j-06/026 addresses an important issue. Deployments also depend on how a number of RSs are managed. For example, deployments will vary in terms of how management messages are processed, how RSs are configured with respect to a MMR-BS.
While some of this may be for later consideration (schedule for new ideas), I hope to discuss views on including a RS management section in the document.
3. Mobility (Section 7.1)
From the corresponding contribution for this section (C802.16j-06/029) and other deployment scenarios, I think mobility seems to relate to 2 cases;
i. RS mobility with respect to the MMR-BS (e.g. the train scenario from C802.16j-06/028)
ii. RS supporting mobility of SSs (e.g. a SS moving from one RS to another RS)
In the first case, the RS has to handover from one MMR-BS to another. And in the second case, the RS has to support handovers performed by moving SS.
I think the 2 cases will have some distinct requirements.
I look forward to discussing these further on Thursday.
Cheers,
Saravanan Govindan
Panasonic Singapore Laboratories
(T) +65 6550 5441 (F) +65 6550 5459
(E) saravanan.govindan@sg.panasonic.com