Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing 6/1/06 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group

[Asa Masahito-c22106 <asa@MOTOROLA.COM>]

Jerry,

 

Thank you for the update.

Here are my comments.

 

5. Topology

 - I do not think we need to talk about mobility of RS here.

   My suggestion is to just describe as RS in Figure 2 rather than FRS/NRS/MRS .

 - we may need to clarify if the figure 2 is showing snapshot or historical trace with route change

 

5.3 Type of Routes

 - I like to include cooperative relay or macro diversity (SHO) in this section.

   Figure would be

         

           MMR-BS
          /    \
         /      \
        RS      RS
         \      /   
          \    /
            MS

Sorry if the figure is broken.

 

6.3 Complexity

 - We may need to clarify what is the complexity

 - I think elements of RS complexity are

   number/type of antenna, memory size, size of database, processing speed, etc.

 - one option is to include antenna usage in this subsection

   then, we do not need to go detail into the antenna usage as described in 6.4

 

Best Regards,

Asa

 

---

From: Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 2:32 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing 6/1/06 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group

Dear Ad Hoc participants,

 

The next meeting of the Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group will occur on Thursday June 8,  06:00 – 08:00 PDT (13:00 – 15:00 UTC).

 

The bridge for the meeting is 916-356-2663, Bridge: 3, Passcode: 3465863.

 

I have updated the draft to include modifications to the outline that we agreed to in the June 1 meeting. It can be found in the following location: http://dot16.org/CSUpload//upload/temp_db/C80216j%2d06_UMAHtemp_r2.doc.

 

My plan is to assemble a list of issues that we need to resolve in the next meeting via email discussion before the meeting. Please review the document and bring up issues that you have with the technical content (or missing content) of the document. (Editorial comments are welcome, but we may want to hold off on making editorial changes until we are sure that we are not changing the technical content).

 

Please send your comments to the list before Wednesday 08:00 PDT. I will assemble a list of issues for us to resolve based on the comments received up to that point. Below is the list of issues that have been raised in emails, but were not resolved in that meeting.

 

-          Should we create a separate figure for each of the usage models

-          In Figure 2 (the link types figure)

o        Should we show connections between an MS and two RSs or RS and BS to indicate SHO

o        The figure implies that nomadic RSs can communicate to other nomadic RSs. Do we believe that the temporary usage model suggest this type of usage?

-          In Section 5.3

o        Are asymmetric routes suggested by any of the usage models?

o        Is the updated figure on route types clear and is this the correct level of detail?

-          Section 6.4 – need to discuss again the level of detail that should be captured in this section

-          Section 6 in general – is there any missing content?

 

 

Best Regards,

Jerry Sydir