| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Anh Tuan, Eldad, and all, Thank you for good progressive text. Please see my inline comment below. Best Regards, Eunkyung Kim Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) From: Anh Tuan Hoang [mailto:mbox.hoang@GMAIL.COM] Hi Eldad and all, Thanks for the useful comments on the proposed text for multimode. Based on yesterday CC, I have edited the text as shown inline. If you would like to modify, please do so with version number, e.g., P1v2- for version 2 of paragraph 1, together with some justifications. Hopefully we can output some harmonized text for MM RG. Best regards, Anh Tuan On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Zeira, Eldad <Eldad.Zeira@interdigital.com> wrote: Thanks Anh Tuan, Please see comments below – hope this helps Eldad Office +1 631 622 4134 Mobile +1 631 428 4052 Based in NY area From: Anh Tuan Hoang [mailto:mbox.hoang@GMAIL.COM] Hi all, Based on email discussions for multi-mode topic, I would like to propose that the following text to be considered for harmonization. Alina and others, please comment. Proposed text: ++++++++++++++++++ Paragraph 1:
[Anh Tuan] If I understand correctly from our 2nd CC discussion, I2R/ETRI/NICT seem to be ok with the last sentence while InterDigital has some concern. The suggestion was to remove the last sentence, with the understanding that we can get back to it with further technical discussions. However, to maintain the history of our email discussion, I would like to propose a modified text as: P1v2: [Upon losing backhaul connection, an HR-BS (affected HR-BS) shall be able to operate as a relay station to communicate with another HR-BS (supporting HR-BS) that has connection to backhaul. To the supporting HR-BS, the affected HR-BS is treated as a normal HR-RS. To the subordinate stations of the affected HR-BS, whether the affected HR-BS can continue to act as an HR-BS or it should completely operate as a normal HR-RS is [FFD].] [ekkim] I would like to keep the requirement (no supporting interface between RSs) of 16m. Thus, when any HR-RS is attached HR-BS trying to switch as HR-RS, HR-BS acting as HR-RS should have relay link with neighbor superordinate HR-BS but it should be considered as HR-BS still for the subordinate HR-RS/HR-MS. Therefore, I would like to suggest the last sentence as “To the subordinate stations of the affected HR-BS, the affected HR-BS can continue to act as an HR-BS or it should completely operate as a normal HR-RS.” without any FFD. In addition, although the condition is informative and helpful to read the spec, it seems not proper way to describe the AWD text. Thus, the following text I would like to propose. Plv3: [with markup] [without markup] An HR-BS (affected HR-BS) may operate as a relay station to communicate with another HR-BS (supporting HR-BS) that has connection to backhaul. To the supporting HR-BS, the affected HR-BS is treated as a normal HR-RS. To the subordinate stations of the affected HR-BS, the affected HR-BS is regarded as either an HR-BS or an HR-RS. +++++++++++++++++ Paragraph 2:
[Anh Tuan] I believe that we agreed in 2nd CC that some MS functionalities need to be retained,e.g., cell searching. I have also explained the reason for the mode switch of HR-MS to be directed by superordinate station (HR-BS/RS) at the point of SPOF. So I proposed the following version: P2v3: [In the absence of any infrastructure station, an HR-MS may be able to operate as an HR-BS to provide connectivity for itself and other HR-MSs. While doing so, the HR-MS shall maintain certain HR-MS functionalities such as those needed to search for newly available infrastructure stations. The mode switch to HR-BS can be initiated by the HR-MS itself (with or without information previously received from the network) or this can be directed by the superordinate station of the HR-MS in response to SPOF (e.g., failure of the superordinate station).] [ekkim] Why I would like to remove the condition is the same as I mentioned in paragraph 1. I think “may” is better word than “can” in AWD. Question is ”Does superordinate station include HR-BS and HR-RS?” I am not sure whether HR-RS directs the HR-MS to switch as HR-BS. Thus, the following text I would like to propose. P2v4[with markup]: [without markup]: An HR-MS may operate as an HR-BS to provide connectivity for itself and other HR-MSs. While doing so, the HR-MS may maintain certain HR-MS functionalities such as those needed to search for newly available infrastructure stations. The mode switch to HR-BS may be initiated by the HR-MS itself or may be directed by the superordinate HR-BS of the HR-MS +++++++++++++++++ Paragraph 3:
[Anh Tuan] I would like to propose: P3v3: [In response to SPOF (e.g., HR-BS/RS failure or loss of backhaul) or to support coverage extension, an HR-MS may be able to operate as an HR-RS to provide connectivity for multiple affected/out-of-coverage HR-MSs. While doing so, the HR-MS shall maintain certain HR-MS functionalities such as those needed to support HR-MS mobility. A mode switch to HR-RS shall be initiated by the superordinate station of the HR-MS]. [ekkim] similar previous comment. P3v4 [with markup]
[without markup] An HR-MS may operate as an HR-RS to provide connectivity for multiple affected/out-of-coverage HR-MSs. While doing so, the HR-MS may maintain certain HR-MS functionalities such as those needed to support HR-MS mobility. A mode switch to HR-RS shall be initiated by the superordinate HR-BS of the HR-MS.
|