Lei,
I believe that we
have participants from all three US time zones, Europe, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. The
only time which does not fall between midnight and 6 AM for anybody is the
time that I chose (6 AM PDT). I had thought about alternating between two
meeting times as you suggest, but as far as I can tell, any other time will
mean that participants from some part of the world have to be on the call
between midnight and 6 AM. Is there a time that you can suggest? What
are the times of the two time slots that the MTG
uses?
Regards,
Jerry
From: Lei
Wang [mailto:LWang@cygnuscom.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02
PM
To: Sydir, Jerry
Cc:
STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM]
Minutes from 5/25 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc
Group
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:
Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006
9:49 AM
To:
STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM]
Minutes from 5/25 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc
Group
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
Frank Favichia
– 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
Frank Ren -
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