| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi, Jerry, Thanks for your response. The current MTG
weekly meetings are alternating between 6:00am PDT and 8:00pm PDT. Regards, Lei From: 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 |