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

Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Agenda for 6/8/06 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group



Dear All,
I agree with Sungjin that we should not discuss solutions in the usage model document. More specifically, SHO, cooperative relaying, separation of user and control plane should be out of the usage model scope.
 
Best Regards,
Yousuf
 


From: ext Sungjin Lee [mailto:steve.lee@samsung.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:02 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Agenda for 6/8/06 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group

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 Israel meeting. So I am very confusing with recent a number of new proposed items in usage model.

 

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.
Global Standards & Research Team
Telecommunication R&D Center

Samsung Electronics

 

OFFICE : +82 31 279 5248
MOBILE : +82 11 223 6603
E-mail : steve.lee@samsung.com sj.lee@ieee.org

 


From: Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:13 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Agenda for 6/8/06 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group
Importance: High

 

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: Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:32 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,  06:0008:00 PDT (13:0015:00 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