| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear AH
participants, In my
understanding, the goal of this Ad-hoc group is to discuss on just MMR Usage
models and not on specific solutions as we made consensus at last I would like
to ask if we are discussing on just usage models or specific solutions at this
stage. BR, Sungjin Lee Advanced Research Lab. OFFICE : +82 31 279
5248 From:
Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM] 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, 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 -
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 |