| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Asa and
all, For your
comment on section 6, I wonder why the big change is really needed at this
time. The group is
almost close to be consensus and just discussing about the missing contents as
you see in the meeting agenda today. In addition,
since you have not uploaded the proposed text to change, I do not get what the
text you want to add or change exactly. For your
comment on RS ownership concerning section 6.2, Best regards, Sungjin Lee Global OFFICE : +82 31 279
5248 From:
Asa Masahito-c22106 [mailto:asa@MOTOROLA.COM] Jerry and all, Sorry for the late
response. Here are my
comments for the next conf. call. 1. Reorganization
of section 6 I would like to
remove RS characteristics. Instead, my
proposal is 6. RS
mobility 7. RS
Ownership 8. Antenna
usage Main reason of
this change is antenna usage includes BS characteristics
as well as RS characteristics. So I would like to
make antenna usage the independent section 8 Lastly I do not
want include availability in this document. It seems more like
solution including preferences of service provider. 2. RS Ownership I would like to
make it clear what is ownership is. I think - who
controls RS - who
installs RS - who
decides place of RS antenna - who pays
for RS equipment may
be considered for infrastructure(provider) or
client ownership My understanding
is -
infrastructure (or provider) ownership
*provider controls/installs/decides place of RS - client
ownership
*provider controls RS, user installs/decides place of RS Best Regards, Asa From:
Agenda: -
Roll call -
Discuss points raised in email discussion: -
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? -
Section 5.3 – proposal to specify that route selection
is centralized (from Jen-Shun Yang) -
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 15, The bridge for the meeting is 916-356-2663, Bridge: 1, Passcode: 4686427 I have updated the draft to include modifications to the
outline that we agreed to in the June 8 meeting. It can be found in the
following location: http://dot16.org/CSUpload//upload/temp_db/C80216j%2d06_UMAHtemp_r3a.doc
. Please take care to look at the r3a version of the
document. There is an r3 version that I had uploaded to the server, but I
discovered that I had not made all of the agreed upon modifications, so I
created the r3a version. 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 -
Roll call -
Discuss points raised in email discussion: -
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 proposals for additional usage models -
Discuss next steps o
Proposals for additional usage models? o
Wrapping up the editing of the contribution |