| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
See my prior message regarding the femto
cell comments. Until the SRD CR is approved, these comments remain out of
scope. Brian From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM] Hua, I cannot tell why your comment 093 was
mislabeled as ‘Security – MAC’. It appears that the material
clearly is on HARQ section 10.2.3. I have talked with Ron Murias, one of the HARQ
RG Chairs, and he does not believe your comment 093 covers current work in the
HARQ RG. So we will reclassify your comment 093 as ‘SDD Cleanup –
MAC’. Also, on your comment 107, I find the same
problem. 107 will be reclassified to ‘SDD Cleanup – MAC’. On your comments 567 and 568 on
Femtocells, current work to resolve the SRD CR on Femtocells at this Session is
irrelevant when assessing the disposition of your comments. There is no TGm
Call for Contributions and Comments element that requests the addition of a
new section for Femtocells, between the existing sections 16 and 17. There is
no CfC&C element that provides for contributing such work. Nevertheless, if a preponderance of TGm
participants wish to review and resolve your comments 567 and 568 then I have
no doubt that we will do so. The best way for participants to indicate their
interest is to supply Reply Comments to these comments indicating that they
should have their tag changed to ‘SDD Cleanup – MAC’, and
that they want the comments reviewed as part of the SDD comment resolution. Thanks,
From: Thanks Phil. As long as these three
comments get discussed with the other MAC Idle Mode contributions, I am
fine with the marking you see appropriate. 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. 2. Propose high level design
philosophy into the newly created Femtocell section. Would it be appropriate
to mark them as "SDD Cleanup - MAC"? Thanks. Hua Xu Motorola From: Phillip
Barber [mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM] 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,
From: 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: 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. 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:
and
authorize the editor to implement those changes in the next issue of the SDD
Kind
regards, |