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

Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model contribution author list



Dear All,

I also don't see any problem with the current statement of all data
communications occuring between the MMR-BS and MSs.  Is there any data
traffic that that does not originate from or destine to the MMR-BS
within the existing specification or the scope of 16j?

Best Regards,
Ching-Tarng Hsieh
Information & Communications Research Labs/ITRI
Tel: 886-3-591-7379, Fax: 886-3-582-0204
E-mail: chsieh@itri.org.tw
================================================
NOTICE:
This e-mail may contain privileged confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient or have received
this email in error, please notify us and delete this email
immediately. We appreciate your cooperation. You should
be aware that any unauthorized use, distribution or copying
of said confidential information is strictly prohibited.

---------------- Original Message ----------------
> 李永台 <lyt@NMI.III.ORG.TW> 2006-06-28 02:07:39 PM    wrote:

收件人: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org

主旨: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model
contribution author list

Kim,

I believe that this sentence defines the scope of MMR. If we remove it,
then
there is no difference between MMR and "pico BS + ad hoc routing
protocols".
The scope of MMR had been defined clearly in MMR SG document
80216mmr-06_006.pdf.

Youn-Tai Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "J Kim" <macsbug@RESEARCH.ATT.COM>
To: <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model
contribution author list


Jerry and all.

I think the added sentence at the beginning of Section 6.3 (was 5.3)

"In all of the usage models described in section 3, all data
communications occur between the MMR-BS and MSs through zero or more
RSs."

is unnecessary along the lines of the discussions in the attached mail.

At the current stage and especially for usage models, I see no reason to
limit all traffic back to MMR-BS.
I'm assumming I'm not the only one reading it to mean all user traffic
must come to BS?

I suggest removing it.

Bests.

"J" Kim


________________________________

From: Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:30 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model contribution
author list



Dear Ad Hoc participants,



In the latest revision of the harmonized Usage Model contribution, I
have added the list of the ad hoc participants as co-authors of the
document. I've included all those who expressed interest in the ad hoc
group, participated in the calls, or sent emails on the mailing list
expressing opinions on the contents. Please take a look at the list and
send me an email if you have participated and I have missed you, or if
you do not wish to have your name in the list. (Its probably sufficient
to reply to me directly to me).



The document can be found in the following location:
http://dot16.org/CSUpload//upload/temp_db/C80216j%2d06_UMAHtemp_r5.doc
<http://dot16.org/CSUpload/upload/temp_db/C80216j%2d06_UMAHtemp_r5.doc>
.



Best 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.