| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Kim and all, It has been stated clearly in MMR SG official document (IEEE 802.16mmr-06/006) that MMR is intended to "enable mobile stations to communicate with a base station through intermediate relay stations". Therefore, removing the sentence Kim mentioned would make RS more like a wireless switch. It seems to be out of the MMR scope. So I agree to keep it. Kaibin Zhang -----Original Message----- From: J Kim [mailto:macsbug@RESEARCH.ATT.COM] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:19 AM To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model contribution author list Please quote a direct reference to prohibiting MS-RS-MS traffic forwarding from the PAR, or at least a reasonable phrase that you may interpret so. I don't believe "no mods to MS" implies so, since a unmodded MS cannot tell if it's talking to RS or BS. The tutorial, 80216mmr-06_006.pdf, does not contain such statement, nor it is the final word on the scope. "J" Kim -----Original Message----- From: loa@nmi.iii.org.tw [mailto:loa@nmi.iii.org.tw] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:05 AM To: Kim,Byoung-Jo J (J) Cc: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: 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. Ken ---------------------- Kanchei(Ken) Loa Institute for Information Industry Networks & Multimedia Institute - WiMAX Technology Center -----Original Message----- From: J Kim [mailto:macsbug@RESEARCH.ATT.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:15 AM To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 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