| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Brian,
I agree with what you said in principle. Judging that
the SRD CR on Femtocell is likely to pass, do you think we can at least have a
discussion on if a new section on "Support for Femtocell" should be
added into the SDD table of content so the call for Femtocell input can be open
on Nov meeting?
Thanks.
-hua From: Kiernan, Brian G [mailto:Brian.Kiernan@InterDigital.com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:10 AM To: Xu Hua-QA1359; STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] [TGm] Editorial comments in SDD commentary DB, revision 1 There was no specific
call for femtocell input and the proposed SRD CR on femto cell has yet to be
approved. Until that approval happens, the femto cell SDD comments are out
of scope. Brian From: Xu
Hua-QA1359 [mailto:Hua.Xu@MOTOROLA.COM] 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: Xu
Hua-QA1359 [mailto:Hua.Xu@MOTOROLA.COM] 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,
|