Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing 6/22/06 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group

[Peiying Zhu <pyzhu@NORTEL.COM>]

Title: Message

Hi, All:

 

My understanding is that strict tree like topology for data traffic is not necessary. The existing .16e standard supports FBSS and MDHO, where data traffic comes from multiple BSs, i.e., they are not a strict tree structure. By default, these features will be supported in .16j. However, we could limit the control path to tree topology to simplify the operations.

 

So coming back to the question, I believe the diagram indicates the possible cooperative transmission from multiple BSs or RSs.

 

Peiying

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Kim [mailto:kyeongsoo.kim@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:24 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing 6/22/06 Meeting of Multihop Relay Usage Model Ad Hoc Group

Hi Jerry,

I have the same questions as Jen-Shun regarding the figure in Sec. 5. In fact, I wonder whether the current descriptions on association in Sec. 5.1 include the following cases or not:

• An MS can simultaneously(?) be associated with both MMR-BS and RS ( i.e., "MS 2" in the figure)
• An MS can simultaneously(?) be associated with multiple RSs (i.e., "MS 3");
• An RS can simultaneously(?) be associated with multiple RSs (i.e., "RS 4").

Many thanks in advance for your clarification!

Regards,
Joseph
--
Principal Engineer
Advanced System Technology
STMicroelectronics
- Mobile: (408) 621-4913
- kyeongsoo.kim@st.com / kks@stanford.edu
- http://www.stanford.edu/~kks/

On 6/20/06, Jen-Shun Yang <jsyang@itri.org.tw> wrote:

Dear Jerry,

           I got two questions about section 5.

1. Are the MS2 and MS3 in Figure 4 describing the cooperative transmission or the asymmetric routes of uplink and downlink or both? If they are just meant to the asymmetric routes of uplink and downlink, I would suggest that you may change the line of one accee link of MS2 and MS3 to be a dot-line.

2. Does the multiple routing path between MMR-BS and RS4 been used simultaneously? If they are not been used simultaneously, I would suggest that you may change the line of one access link of RS4 to be a dot-line, otherwise the figure 4 is not a "tree-like" topology.

Best Regards,


Jen-Shun Yang (Tonny Yang)
ITRI/ICL
TEL: +886-3-5914616
email: jsyang@itri.org.tw

	"Sydir, Jerry" <jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM> - 2006/06/16 06:02 AM 請回信 給 "Sydir, Jerry"	收件人：        STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org ,         副本抄送：        ,         主旨：        [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Announcing 6/22/06 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 22, 06:00 – 07:45 PDT (13:00 – 15:00 UTC). (Note that we will finish 15 minutes earlier due to conflicts).
 
The bridge for the meeting is 916-356-2663, Bridge: 2, Passcode: 3578218
 
I have updated the draft to include modifications to the outline that we agreed to in the June 15 meeting. It can be found in the following location:   http://dot16.org/CSUpload//upload/temp_db/C80216j%2d06_UMAHtemp_r4.doc
 
Please review the changes to make sure they are consistent with what we decided.
 
The main topics planned for the meeting are:
-          Go over any issues identified in the current version of the document
-          Discuss the new usage model proposal put forth by Matt Sherman (Matt will upload updated version prior to the meeting
 
Please send comments and issues that we need to discuss to the mail list prior to Wednesday June 14 8 AM PDT. I will send out a detailed agenda for the meeting on Wendesday.
 
Regards,
Jerry Sydir
 
 

本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.