Re: [STDS-802-16] [DC#1] RE: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Summary of 1st PWR RG CC

["js.choi" <js.choi@LGE.COM>]

Dear Tez,

 

Thanks for your response. For your questions,

 

1. Through the contribution, I assumed the group anchor device can be one of cooperative device types. I expect the proposed device cooperation mode can be supported for both scenarios presented in the contribution.

2,3 Using RS means we need some infrastructure to support device cooperation mode, which would require increased complexity and cost. In the proposed scheme, I assumed the cooperative device is one of device types who helps transmission of the source device or possibly communicates its own data (utilizing with least cost and functionality addition). Only fixed source and cooperative device are considered to minimize scheduling/grouping complexity.  

 

If you have any further questions, please let me know that. Thanks.

 

Best regards,

 

Jinsoo

 

From: tez [mailto:tez@NMI.III.ORG.TW]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 6:27 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [DC#1] RE: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Summary of 1st PWR RG CC

 

 Dear Jinsoo,

 

Thank you for sharing the contribution. I have three questions.

 

1. You introduced two new kinds of devices, namely, cooperative device and group anchor device. But it seems to me you proposed to add the cooperative device only. Is my understanding correct?

 

2. What is the difference between the cooperative device and the RS?

 

3. Is cooperative device mobile?  If yes, are you proposing mobile RS in 16p?

 

Best Regards,

Tez

   

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: js.choi

To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:26 PM

Subject: [STDS-802-16] [DC#1] RE: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Summary of 1st PWR RG CC

 

Dear 16p PWR RG chair and members,

 

First thanks to Kiseon for your summary and arranging the harmonization process. I can initiate the harmonization activity regarding DC#1 issue.

 

I just uploaded a material (C802.16p-rg-11/0037.ppt) to the RG server which includes motivation to support device cooperation in M2M, please refer that with the submitted contribution 0019. Any opinion and suggestion from members will be welcome.

 

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

Jinsoo

 

From: Kiseon Ryu [mailto:kiseon.ryu@LGE.COM]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:51 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
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 M2M group with priority: Increased congestions to low priority group?

[NE#2] Dedicated ranging code and/or ranging region for M2M (e.g., S-RNG): Impact to legacy MS and its overhead of dedicated region?

 

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