Re: [STDS-802-16] FW: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing First meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group
Dear Jerry and all:
I agree that there would be redundancy in the document according to Asa's
suggestion. However, it seems easier at the beginning of this process to
develop the strategy, topology, frequency usage, RS characteristics, etc.
for each of deployment scenario. After that is complete, we may want to
classify the strategy, topology, frequency usage and RS characteristics and
use tables to summarize these aspects for each of deployment
scenarios-somewhat like what Jerry is proposing right now.
So, my thinking is to use two-step approach to develop the document. The
first step uses Asa's approach and then we reorganize the document a little
bit more concise as Jerry wishes.
Thanks and regards
Wern Ho
Wern Ho Sheen
Senior Technical Consultant
Wireless Communication Technology Division
Information & Communication Research Laboratories
E-mail: whsheen@itri.org.tw
Tel: +88635917381
FAX:+88635820204
---------------- Original Message ----------------
> ''Sydir, Jerry'' <jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM> 2006-05-25 07:57:48 AM wrote:
¦¬„ó¤H: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
„D¦®: Re: [STDS-802-16] FW: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing First
meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group
Asa,
Thank you for providing input to the discussion. You bring up some key
points on the organization of the document. We will discuss them in the
meeting tomorrow. I have some initial thoughts to add to the discussion.
Your comment on including sections 4-7 as subsections of each of the usage
model sections (3.x.x) raises a fundamental question on the organization of
the document. I had considered structuring the document in that fashion,
but concluded that there would be a lot of repetition in those sections
from model to model. My feeling is that each of the models is unique in a
few aspects of the topology, deployment strategy, attributes of the RSs
uses, etc (sections 4-7), but they are not unique in all of them. For that
reason I think that the document will be more concise if we describe out
those points of uniqueness as part of the description of each usage model
(without creating all of the subsections) and then summarized the complete
set of topologies, deployment strategies, etc. in sections 4-7.
I agree with your idea that we have subsections for significant
variations/examples of the major usage models. I would suggest that we have
a common description of the model first, and then short sections describing
the specific examples / variations.
Regards,
Jerry Sydir
From:Asa Masahito-c22106 [mailto:asa@MOTOROLA.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:28 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] FW: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing First
meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group
Jerry and all,
Thank you for announcing the ad hoc group discussion.
I have a suggestion on the table of contents or organization of the
document.
My suggestion is mainly section three.
Suggested TOC is,
3.1”@Throughput Enhancement
”@3.1.1 Detailed model A
”@3.1.2 Detailed model B
”@3.1.3 Detailed model C
”@3.1.4 ....
3.2”@Coverage / Range Extension
”@3.2.1 Detailed model E
”@3.2.2 Detailed model F
”@3.2.3 Detailed model G
”@3.2.4 ....
3.3”@Capacity Enhancement
”@3.3.1 Detailed model I
”@3.3.2 Detailed model J
”@3.3.3 Detailed model K
”@3.3.4 ....
I would like to make subsections and make a bit detail model.
For example,
3.1.1 detailed model A could be enhance model at cell edge.
3.1.2 detailed model B could be enhance model at valley of buildings
3.2.1 could be enhancement for isolated area and
3.2.2 could be enhancement at underground.
”@ (I like to define under ground as out of range area
”@”@ even if it is within the MMR-BS cell)
3.3.1 could be enhancement at temporally event.
Then I would suggest to discuss
”@- deployment strategy
”@- mobility
”@- owner ship
”@- topology
”@- link type
”@- RS type
”@- antenna
for each detailed model.
I mean section 4 - 7 should be discussed in section 3.
I think collection of detailed models”@is the main point of Usage Models
document.
I would like to hear your opinion.
Best Regards,
Asa
p.s.
I would like to include 3.4 mobile RS in section 3.1”@TP enhancement.
Because”@mobile RS intends”@TP increase at inside the public
transportation.
From:Sydir, Jerry[mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:43 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing First meeting of Multihop
Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group
Given the large number of folks interested in the Multihop Relay Usage
Model Ad Hoc group, I”¦ve decided to follow the suggestions to use the
802.16 STDS exploder to carry on Ad Hoc group discussions instead of
setting up a separate email list as I had indicated in earlier
communications. Please append the prefix [MMR-AH-UM] to all communications
meant for the ad-hoc group.
The first meeting (conference call) of the Ad Hoc group will be held on
Thursday May 25, 2006 from 06:00 ”V 08:00 (AM) pacific time (GMT-08:00).
Here is the bridge for the meeting: +1 916-356-2663,”@Bridge: 2,”@Passcode:
1157820.
I have uploaded some slides that I will use to kick off the meeting to the
temporary upload directory. The document title is
C80216j-06_UMAH-kick-off.ppt.
I have also uploaded a starting version of the harmonized contribution (the
outline) to the same directory. The document title is
C80216j-06_UMAHtemp.doc. Please review this document in advance and bring
up any points of disagreement via email (over this email list) in order to
help make the meeting more productive.
I”¦m looking forward to working with all of you to produce a harmonized
usage model contribution.
Regards,
Jerry Sydir
Wireless Networking Lab, Intel Corp.
(408) 765 - 2215