Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] UPDATED Minutes from 5/25 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group



 

Sorry for the multiple emails. I’ve corrected the date of the meeting.

 I have updated the attendee list with the folks that I missed in the first attempt.

 

 

Meeting Time: Thursday May 25, 2006 06:00 – 08:00 PDT

Venue: conference call

 

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

Shiann-Tsang Sheu – Institute for Information Industry

Kanchei (Ken) Loa – Institute for Information Industry

Yung-Ting Lee – Institute for Information Industry

Heng-Iang Hsu – Institute for Information Industry

Hua-Chiang Yin – Institute for Information Industry

Mitsuo Nohara – KDDI

Asa Masahito – Motorola

David Chen – Motorola

Jing Wang – VIA Telecom

Byung-Jae Kwak – ETRI

Sung-Cheol Chang – ETRI

Derek Yu – Nortel

Dazi Feng – ZTE