| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
For the femto discussion, it was right decision to declare it as out of scope.
Further, we need to think we really needs "new" femto section in addition to current SON section of SDD.
It's because most parts of Hua Xu's proposal was captured already in SDD text.
At least, they overlap each other.
My proposal is to have discussion on Nov. under SON section.
I think we can start to decide whether we need to change the section title from SON to femto or not.
Regaards.
----------------------------------------
Jaehee Cho (???/???) Ph.D.
Senior Engineer, System Tech. Lab.
Telecommunication R&D Center
Telecommunication Network Business
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd
jaehee1.cho@samsung.com
MOBILE:+82-16-9530-5596
OFFICE:+82-31- 279-5596
F A X:+82-31- 279-5515
----------------------------------------
For my comment 093 on HARQ ARQ interaction, do you see a better fit for HARQ group instead of security group?
Also I have two Femtocell related comments, 567 and 568, which are currently being marked as "out of scope". As you know, SPWG has been discussing Femtocell topics for a long time. Intel, Sprint, KT, Comcast, Alcatel Lucent, ZTE, Fujitsu, Wipro Technologies also submitted a contribution (C80216m-08_1157.doc) to this meeting requesting SRD changes to support Femtocell. Since Femtocell has many unique characteristics, it is hard to insert pieces into the current SDD framework. What we are proposing in these two comments are
1. Create a new section in SDD to address Femtocell issues.
Thanks.
Hua Xu
Hua,
Your Idle Mode comments
034, 035 and 036 were originally assigned the tag of ‘MAC: Idle’, which is a tag
reserved for the output of Idle Mode Rapporteur Group. Thus your comments were
assessed as ‘out-of-scope’ because there is no place in the TGm Call
for Contributions and Comments for you to respond by filing comments on Idle
Mode as an independent topic.
Based on your email, I
believe your intention was to file these comments as ‘SDD Cleanup – MAC’ on
section 6.4, which is within the scope of the portion of the
CfC&C:
This announcement
requests for text describing detailed
technical solutions that are consistent with
the SDD and are suitable for submission as part of an ITU proposal. The details
are requested on the following sections:
• Newly accepted text
output from the Rapporteur Groups in Session #56, primarily in Sections 4, 6 [emphasis added], 8, 10 and
11.
So we will convert the
tags for your comments 034, 035 and 036 to ‘SDD Cleanup –
MAC’.
Your comments will
undoubtedly be resolved at the same time as the Idle Mode RG comment 104, with
the associated contribution C802.16m-08/1128.
Thanks,
Phillip
Barber
Chief Scientist
Wireless Advanced Research and Standards
Huawei
Technologies Co., LTD.
Rapporteur Group Chair
Coordinator, IEEE 802.16 TGm
From: Xu
Hua-QA1359 [mailto:Hua.Xu@MOTOROLA.COM]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:48
PM
To:
STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [TGm] Editorial
comments in SDD commentary DB, revision 1
Dear Shkumbin, Phillip,
and All,
Appreciate the work you
have done.
I have three MAC-Idle
mode related comments: 034, 035, 036. I don't know why they are being
marked as "out of scope". High level design philosophy on paging group,
paging area, and paging interval are well within the idle mode group
discussion. In our opinion, they should belong to MAC-Idle Mode.
Please reconsider it.
My other comment 093
addresses the HARQ ARQ interaction, which currently being marked as
Security-MAC. Would it be better fit for HARQ group
discussion?
Thanks.
Hua
Xu
Motorola
From: Shkumbin
Hamiti [mailto:shkumbin.hamiti@NOKIA.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:45
PM
To:
STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [TGm] Editorial
comments in SDD commentary DB, revision 1
Dear
colleagues,
I
have just uploaded the Rev 1 of the SDD commentary DB, the IEEE
802.16m-08/034r1. You can find it here: http://dot16.org/ul//upload/TGm_db/802.16m%2d08_034r1.zip
This revision contains one file that
I had missed in the first upload and few other files that were uploaded late.
In addition, and quite important,
you will find a classification of comments. Please note that for those comments
that had no classification by the author I have assumed a certain tag. I expect
that there may be some misallocations, so I kindly ask you to check and if you
disagree please let me know and I will correct it.
There are 160 editorial comments,
and as usual there will be a motion to approve all of them in a batch. Since we
would like to have this motion proposed quite early in the session I kindly ask
to check the comment numbers below and let me know if you disagree on any of
those.
Here is the rough text that will be
proposed as a motion:
To
accept the following list of comments in the IEEE
802.16m-08/034r1:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15,
19, 21, 30, 37, 38, 42, 44, 51, 91, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124,
125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143,
144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 167, 168, 173, 174, 176, 177,
178, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 201, 204,
205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 222, 223, 226, 228,
230, 232, 234, 235, 239, 246, 252, 254, 256, 258, 259, 260, 265, 274, 289, 290,
304, 305, 308, 316, 319, 336, 339, 340, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 360, 361,
362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 372, 373, 374, 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 384,
387, 388, 400, 405, 419, 432, 445, 446, 457, 459, 465, 469, 475, 525, 543, 576,
578, 579, 596,
and
authorize the editor to implement those changes in the next issue of the
SDD
Kind regards,
Shkumbin Hamiti
SDD Editor