Dear Hyunjeong and
all
In M
In addition, M
Therefore, I think that various
M
Hence, M
The M
In both
Based on this reason, a priority
factor shall be introduced in 16p.
BR
Wei-Chieh
From:
Hyunjeong Kang [mailto:hyunjeong.kang@samsung.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011
12:37 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p
PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle
mode
Dear Wei-Chieh and all,
As I asked during the conf. call, could you first clarify
“priority factor” for 16p?
I’m not sure why we should define a method to support “priority
factor” without any definition or usage for “priority factor”.
Regards,
Hyunjeong
From:
lei zhou [mailto:l.zhou@samsung.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011
12:53 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p
PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle
mode
Dear Wei-Chieh and all:
I have mentioned that we can reuse
the parameter access class in
Any comments are welcome.
BR
Lei
------- Original Message -------
Sender :
Date : 二月 16, 2011 11:31
(GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG
- NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode
Dear Jaesun and all
Thank you for your
comment.
I think that a pre-defined
lookup table can be well defined in the standard document.
An M
The lookup table size and
related parameters could be further discussed and then defined.
In addition, I am not sure
the meaning of the “worst case”.
Could you please explain
it more clearly?
Best regards,
From:
차재선 [mailto:jscha@etri.re.kr]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011
3:19 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p
PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle
mode
Dear
Wi-Chieh and all
Thank
you for your comment.
I
agree with you. To add some parameters into SCD message increases overhead.
Then, where do you want to define a table about ranging parameters? Do you mean
that a priority table should be statically defined as a system parameters?
I'm
not sure how many priority factors are needed a this moment. In my guess, one
or two priority factors are needed at early deployment stage. But, if many M
Do
we have to provide a static table considering the worst case?
BR,
Jaesun Cha
Senior Engineer
Wireless Access Technology Research Team
Mobile Telecommunication Research
Laboratory
Electronics and Telecommunications Research
Institute
TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966
-----------------------------------------------------
-----원본 메시지-----
From: "
From Date:
To:
"STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p
PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle
mode
Dear Jaesun and all
I believe it's more
flexible to include ranging information in SCD.
However, it also
increases overhead. In addition, is “more flexible” necessary?
I think that a simple
pre-defined table indicating ranging information shall be sufficient.
Therefore, only the
priority factor needs to be assigned before the devices entering idle mode.
Best regards,
From: 차재선
[mailto:jscha@etri.re.kr]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011
12:04 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p
PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle
mode
Dear Lei and all
Thank you for your
response.
Yes, there are two
trigger modes for network reentry. So, I would like to hear other member's
opinion on the use of single mechanism for both cases.
If authors of
contributions (C0008, C0009, C0017, C0026) give us feedbacks on the high-level
operation, then we can try to provide the consolidated contribution.
Regarding ranging
information, Yes, you are right. Ranging information is carried by S-SFH SP3.
But, there are only 3 types of ranging information (initial, HO, BR). We can
further divide ranging information only for M
BR,
Jaesun Cha
Senior Engineer
Wireless Access Technology Research Team
Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966
-----------------------------------------------------
From: lei zhou
[mailto:l.zhou@samsung.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011
10:33 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p
PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle
mode
Dear Jaesun and all:
Thank you for Jaesun's initializing discussion
on network reentry.
I am Lei from Samsung.
I have the similar view on network reentry trigger
with Jaesun. There are two trigger modes for network reentry inculding network
and terminals (MS and Group).For network reentry triggered M
Btw,
BR
Lei
------- Original Message -------
Sender : 차재선<jscha@etri.re.kr>
Date : 二月 14, 2011 19:15 (GMT+09:00)
Title : [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control
during network reentry from idle mode
Dear all
I'm Jaesun Cha from
ETRI.
I have uploaded a
new contribution regarding access control in the upload server
(C802.16p-rg-11/0035). So, I sent this e-mail to inform you of the new
contribution and to discuss access control related contributions including my
contribution.
According to
Contribution #33r2, there are 5 contributions regarding access control
(including my contribution). Most of them propose an assignment of additional
access control information but assignment method and detailed
information are different from one another.
So, I would like to
suggest to discuss a high-level piture on access control method before
going into detailed access control information. For example, How does
an ABS indicate any additional information for ranging process? When does an
ABS assign an additional parameter for ranging process?
Once an aggrement on
this high-level operation is made, we can go further to discuss any detailed
access control information.
Here is my opinion on
access control.
I agree that access
congestion may happen after group paging. But, although there is no paging,
access control may happen. If an AMS has UL data to be transmitted during
idle mode, it will perform network reentry by transmitting a ranging code. In
smart metering use case, many devices may have same report period, which means
that many smart metering devices will perform ranging process at the
same time.
So, I think we have
to provide the same access control mechanism for network reentry triggered
by a network as well as by an AMS.
For doing that, I
proposes to transmit system information regarding access control for M
Anyone who is
interested in access control please share your opinion through this e-mail
thread.
Any comments on my
suggestion or my contribution are welcomed.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Jaesun Cha
Senior Engineer
Wireless Access Technology Research Team
Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966
-----------------------------------------------------
-----원본 메시지-----
From: "Kiseon Ryu"
<kiseon.ryu@LGE.COM>
From Date:
To:
"STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: [STDS-802-16]
[802.16p][PWR RG] Summary of 1st PWR RG CC
Dear 16p members,
Thanks to all of you
for joining the first PWR RG conference call and sharing much valuable
opinions.
I’ve uploaded the
meeting summary capturing Q&A discussion during the call (80216p-rg-11_0034.doc) to the upload
server.
Here are some key
issues and action items of today's call:
1. Idle Mode Operation
[IDLE#1] New Group
Paging Concept (Including hierarchical paging): Need to clarify its gain?
[IDLE#2] Modified
& Additional LU mechanism (Cell-/Timer-based): Is new definition necessary?
[IDLE#3] Longer Paging
Cycle
Hyunjeong, Soojung,
and Giwon presented their contribution. I would like to ask someone among you
volunteering to lead the harmonization on each topic.
2. Network Reentry
from Idle Mode
[NE#1] Definition of
Waiting Time before UL ranging for network re-entry
a. Waiting time after receiving paging: Need to clarify its gain?
b. Different ranging opportunities for M
[NE#2] Dedicated
ranging code and/or ranging region for M
Jin, Chiwoo,
Ping-Heng, Andreas, Yu-Chuan, Wei-Chieh presented their contribution. I would
like to ask someone among you volunteering to lead the harmonization on each
topic.
3. Device
collaboration
[DC#1] on-/off-state
frame control for DC support: Need to clarify the power saving gain from device
collaboration?
Jinsoo presented the
contribution. Jinsoo, could you initiate harmonization activities with other
members?
If there is any other
issue, please let us know.
* Notes:
1. For all members who
are interested in the above 6 issues, please share your opinion.
2. The initiation of
the e-mail discussion, please use the HEADER (e.g., [IDLE#1], [NE#2]...) in the
e-mail title.
Regards,
Kiseon Ryu
PWR RG Chair
本信件可能包含工?院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，?請銷?此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose
it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.
本信件可能包含工?院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，?請銷?此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose
it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.
本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose
it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best Regards
Dr.Lei Zhou (周雷) ,Ph.D.
Senior
Engineer,
Mobile WIMAX
Evolution Standards,
Advanced
Standard Research Group,
12/F
Chaoyang
District
TEL:(010)5925-3333
Ext.3112
FAX:(010)8468-1366
E-MAIL:l.zhou@samsung.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.