| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Ad Hoc participants, I just noticed that my mail
announcing this week’s meeting had the incorrect date (6/1) in the
subject line and the correct date (6/8) in the body. I apologize for this
error. Hopefully this will not cause problems. Agenda for the 6/8/06: -
Roll call -
Discuss points
raised in email discussion: -
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 and
cooperative relaying (see proposed figure from David Steer on the upload server
and emails from various perticipants) o
Should we drop the
distinction between mobile, nomadic, and fixed RS in the diagram? 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
Should we discuss
separation of data and control plane traffic (RS transmits unicast data, but
not control transmissions or broadcast messages) (see emails from Gang Shen and
others). o
Is the updated
figure on route types clear and is this the correct level of detail? -
Section 6.3 –
need to discuss what should go in this section. What are the attributes that
make an RS more or less complex (see Asa’s email for his comments) -
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? -
Discuss any other
technical comments on the current draft -
Access the status
of the draft – do we have consensus? -
Discuss next steps o
Proposals for
additional usage models? o
Wrapping up the editing
of the contribution From: 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 |