| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Jerry and all, As far as I remember, the AH
group had decided not to discuss specific solution in this document. In my thought, the text at the
end of section 5.3 may be changed as proposed below or delete the whole
sentence. “This possibility of multiple routes can be used
to provide fault tolerance, to enable cooperative transmissions between multiple
relay stations and a
mobile station BR, Sungjin Lee Advanced Research Lab. OFFICE : +82 31 279 5248 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 |