| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Jerry / Youn-Tai Lee, I support 'J' and would prefer that the following statement be removed from the Usage Model document: "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." While I may be in the minority, I believe it would be best for the group if this statement is removed. We should allow proposers the greatest liberty allowed within the PAR in determining a solution. In the end the group will pick the solution they feel is best which may be narrower than the scope of the PAR allows. But we should not constrain proposals more than necessary at this early stage. I do not believe what 'J' requests is outside the scope of the group. Here is my rationale: My understanding is that the 'scope' of 802.16j is defined by its PAR (I invite others to correct me if I am wrong). I believe the official PAR can be found at: <http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/projects/802-16j.pdf> The scope in that document reads: "This document specifies OFDMA physical layer and medium access control layer enhancements to IEEE Std 802.16 for licensed bands to enable the operation of relay stations. Subscriber station specifications are not changed." In addition there is one further comment in the PAR on the scope: "Control functions may be centralized at the base station or distributed among the relay stations with central coordination from the base station." I do not believe the document you cite '80216mmr-06_006.pdf' controls the scope of work for 802.16j in anyway except in that it cites the PAR. Nothing in the PAR scope prohibits sending data from one MS directly to another MS passing only through the RS. In fact, it would be more efficient to pass data in this fashion rather than up to the MMR-BS and all the way back down again. I believe we should allow proposers the flexibility to make trades in this area concerning the inefficiency of forwarding all traffic up to the MMR-BS, or supporting the additional complexity to 'route' traffic locally. Best Regards, Mat Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. Senior Member Technical Staff BAE SYSTEMS, NES Office: +1 973.633.6344 email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com -----Original Message----- From: 李永台 [mailto:lyt@NMI.III.ORG.TW] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:08 AM To: 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. 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