Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][DEV RG] Discussion on Group Resource Allocation

Dear Jinsoo
 
Thank you for your response.
 
In 16m, thousands of group IDs are reserved. If we reserve enough number of group IDs for 16p devices, then the legacy group ID range (2~128) does not need to be shared by 16p devices. In addition, we think that the current number of group IDs is decided based on the possible combination of MIMO mode and Burst size. So, if the legacy group ID range is used by 16m AMS and 16p devices, then all the combination defined in 16m may not be supported because some group IDs are already used by 16p devices. So, we would like to seperate two ranges clearly. old one for 16m AMSs only and new one for 16p devices only.
 
 
Regarding the second question, we are considering the reuse of the existing group configuration mechanism for 16p devices. But, some parameters included in AAI-GRP-CFG message may be changed for simplification or optimization. For example, all MIMO modes defined for group configuration may not be applicable for 16p devices. In addition, we dont' see periodicity defined in AAI-GRP-CFG is applicable for 16p devices.  We need more consideration and discussion on this issue. However, we think that the basic mechanism can be reused for 16p devices.
 
Regards and Thanks
 
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: "js.choi" <js.choi@lge.com>
From Date: 2011-02-21 오후 4:53:30
To: "'차재선'" <jscha@etri.re.kr>, "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][DEV RG] Discussion on Group Resource Allocation

Dear Jaesun,

 

Thanks for initiating issue discussion on group resource allocation for M2M. After reviewing your proposal, I’d like to ask two questions for further understanding.

 

First, I agree it would be helpful to introduce new grouping criteria on M2M subscriber because probably there will be similar traffic patterns and applications to be supported among M2M devices. In addition, if we agree on that criteria, the existing number of group IDs may not be enough as you mentioned. Then, are you considering M2M devices shall be used only with the new group ID range (129-TBD in your proposal) or they can be still included within the existing group IDs, too?

 

Second, assuming new grouping criteria on M2M subscriber, what is your consideration on addition/deletion per AMS flow from a certain group? Is it still applied based on the existing mechanism (i.e. using group configuration MAC control message, etc)?

 

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

Jinsoo

LG Electronics.

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: "차재선" <jscha@etri.re.kr>
From Date: 2011-02-17 오후 6:45:51
To: "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][DEV RG] Discussion on Group Resource Allocation

Dear all
 
I'm Jaesun from ETRI.
 
According to the discussion during the second DEV CC, I would like to initiate discussion on group resource allocation. I have uploaded a new version (C802.16p-rg-11/0013r3).
 
Let me summarize the key point of our contribution.
 
We think that the group resource allocation scheme defined in 16m can be reused for M2M devices. But, our concern is about grouping criteria and the number of Group ID. In 16m, up to 32 AMSs can be grouped into a single group based on MIMO mode and HARQ burst size. Of course, the same criteria can be applied for M2M devices. But, we can expect more efficiency if M2M devices which belong to the same subscriber are grouped into the same group because traffic patterns of M2M devices which belong to the same subscriber are very similar. That's why we propose to consider a subscriber as one of criteria for grouping.
 
In addition, if we consider a subscriber as one of criteria for grouping, then the current number of group IDs may not be enough. In 16m, up to 127 group IDs can be used to identify a group for group resource allocation and this number is decided based on the possible combination of MIMO mode and HARQ burst size. So, If we consider a subscriber as one of criteria for grouping, then more group IDs are needed for indentifying groups which consist of M2M devices.

 
Since there are no other contributions related with group resource allocation, I would like to discuss group resource allocation for 16p with our contribution (C0013r3).
 
If you have any comments or questions on the contribution, please share your opinion with us.
 
Thank you.
 
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: "Kaushik Josiam" <kjosiam@STA.SAMSUNG.COM>
From Date: 2011-02-17 오전 6:27:59
To: "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][DEV-RG] Conference Call-2 minutes

Dear 16p members,

The 2nd DEV RG conference call was held yesterday, Feb 15, 2011 between 6PM-7:30PM US Central Time.

 

The meeting minutes are as follows:

1.     Email discussion summary (C802.16p-rg-11/0039) was reviewed. 

2.     Harmonized contribution on Multicast Transmission for M2M devices (C802.16p-4g-11/0038) was reviewed

a.     Members expressed concern on the following sentence that it precluded feedback

“ When an M2M device receives the multicast traffic indication through the paging message during its paging listening interval, the M2M device shall start receiving the DL multicast data without the idle mode termination.”

It was agreed to insert a brace in the last part of the sentence.

“When an M2M device receives the multicast traffic indication through the paging message during its paging listening interval, [the M2M device shall start receiving the DL multicast data without the idle mode termination].”

b.     Mr. Jeongki Kim (LGE) to continue harmonization and present updated text by next conference call.

3.     Contributions C0016, C0022, C0023, C0024, C0025 were presented.  But they are dependent on whether the group agrees to support a large number of devices.  So, the contributors expressed a desire to revisit these contributions once a decision has been made on the support of large number of devices.

4.     Contribution C0013 on grouping mechanism for group resource allocation was presented. 

a.     Members to continue discussion on the need for additional group ID ranges for GRA to support M2M devices.  Mr. Jaesun Cha (ETRI) will coordinate this discussion.

5.     Contribution C0028 on supporting large number of devices was presented

a.     Members to discuss if rank deficient super-imposed transmission is necessary to be supported for M2M.  Mr. Jia-Hao Wu (ITRI) will coordinate this discussion.

6.     Contributions C0017, C0020, C0028 will be discussed in the PWR RG.

7.     Open discussion on the number of devices to support

a.     Some members expressed reservation on the number of active users exceeding the current addressing capability of 16m while other members expressed the view that the application space would be too big to rule out such a possibility with M2M devices.

b.     Discussions to continue on email.

 

The third and final call for DEV RG will be on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 6PM-8PM US Central Time.

 

If you have any questions/remarks on the minutes, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Regards

Kaushik & Ming-Hung

DEV RG Chairs