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, 06:00 – 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