| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Lei, I believe that we have participants from
all three Regards, Jerry From: Lei Wang
[mailto:LWang@cygnuscom.com] Hi, Jerry and the team, I understand it is very difficult to pick
up a time slot that is suitable to everybody of a group located almost every
land in the entire world. However, I am still wondering if we can do something
similar to what WiMAX TWG/MTG is doing with their weekly conference calls,
i.e., alternate between two time slots, so that we can accommodate more with
each other. Personally, I am interested in this ad hoc group, but I won’t
be able to participate in 6:00am conference calls. Regards, Lei From: Meeting Time: Thursday May 15, 2006 06:00 – 08:00 PDT Venue: conference call Minutes: - I have noted all attendees (at the bottom of the email)
who sent me the “roll call email”. If you attended, but did not
send me an email indicating that you were on the call please do so, so that I
can capture your name in the minutes. - The following
minutes capture the major points of discussion and agreement/disagreement. I
did not attempt to capture everybody’s statements/positions in the
minutes. If I have omitted anything significant, please let me know 1) It
was agreed that meetings will be held once a week on Thursdays at 06:00 PST. 2) It
was clarified during the meeting that the Usage Model Ad Hoc is tasked only
with developing a harmonized Usage Model document (contribution). The group is
not tasked with developing technical requirements. 3) It
was clarified during the meeting that there will not be a separate email list
for the Ad Hoc group. The group will instead use the stds-802-16 reflector,
using the prefix [MMR-AH-UM] in the subject line to identify communications for
the Ad Hoc. 4) It
was agreed that a new section titled “Usage Models” will be
inserted into the outline as section 3 (following the Introduction section).
This section will include the figure that is currently in the introduction and
a short description of the usage models envisioned for 802.16j networks. 5) It
was agreed that the section that was named “Deployment Scenarios”
should be renamed to “Performance Objectives”. This section should
contain the subsections on Throughput Enhancement, Coverage/Range Extension,
and Capacity Enhancement. The purpose of this section is not to specify
specific performance targets, only to describe in a qualitative fashion the
broad aspects of system performance that the usage models aim to improve. There
was not clear consensus on whether the “Mobile RS On Train or Bus” subsection
(the mobility aspect) should be captured as one of the performance objectives
or should be captured elsewhere in the document. 6) There
was debate as to whether the sections on Performance Objectives, Deployment
Strategies, Topologies, etc. should be subsections of each of the usage models.
It was agreed that we will leave them as separate sections and potentially
discuss the point later after filling in the content. 7) It
was suggested that we create a table to summarize the key relationships between
the usage models and the aspects of topology, deployment strategies, etc. We
will need to determine whether this table appears at the beginning of the
document (as a guide/introduction) or at the end of the document as a summary.
We will make the determination later after agreeing on the major contents of
the sections. 8) It
was agreed that section 6 “Frequency Usage” should be removed from
the document, as all usage models will require that all manner of frequency
usage schemes be supported. 9) We
discussed the subsections of the Topology section. Some participants voiced an
opinion that subsections 5.1 and 5.3 should be removed. Others voiced the
opinion that they should not be removed. It was also mentioned that fault
tolerance is an important usage model aspect that is not mentioned elsewhere in
the outline (but is touched upon as part of the discussion of routes in section
5.3), needs to be captured somewhere in the document if sections 5.1 and 5.3
are removed. No consensus was reached on this section. We will try to reach
consensus on this issue in the next meeting. 10) There
was a considerable amount of discussion on the distinction between Usage Models
and Requirements. Usage models should motivate requirements, but should not
capture detailed, specific requirements. In general the usage models documents
should be short and high level. A good test for deciding if a section (the
information within a section) is necessary is to see if it motivates any
technical requirements. 11) It
was agreed that a new revision of the document will be published. This revision
will capture the changes to the outline that were agreed upon in today’s
meeting. It will also contain merged versions of the appropriate content of
usage model contributions to session 43. The group discuss this document via
email and at the next meeting. Attendees: Jerry Sydir - Intel Peiying Zhu – Nortel DJ Shyy – MITRE Yousuf Saifullah - Nokia G.Q Wang – Nortel Matty Levanda - Winetworks David Steer - Nortel Arvind Raghavan - ArrayComm Yong Sun - Toshiba Koon Hoo Teo - Mitsubishi Daqing Gu - Mitsubishi Dharma Basgeet - Toshiba Gang Shen - Alcatel Kyeongsoo (Joseph) Kim - STMicroelectronics Wen-Ho Sheen - ITRI Jen-Shun Yang - ITRI Aimin Zhang - Huawei Wendong Hu - STMicroelectronics Haiguang Wang – I2R Peng-Yong Kong – I2R Yung-Ting Lee - Institute for Information Industry loa@nmi.iii.org.tw -
Institute for Information Industry lyt@nmi.iii.org.tw -
Institute for Information Industry hihsu@nmi.iii.org.tw
- Institute for Information Industry hcyin@nmi.iii.org.tw
- Institute for Information Industry |