| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear ad hoc participants, Just to clarify, the sentence in question is not new. It was in the middle of that paragraph in the previous revision. In the last meeting we agreed to reword it into the current form. I also decided to move it to the start of the paragraph for editorial reasons. There was consensus in the last meeting (and in the meeting before that) to keep the sentence, so I see no reason to debate this again. Best Regards, Jerry -----Original Message----- From: chsieh@ITRI.ORG.TW [mailto:chsieh@ITRI.ORG.TW] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:44 PM To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model contribution author list Dear All, I also don't see any problem with the current statement of all data communications occuring between the MMR-BS and MSs. Is there any data traffic that that does not originate from or destine to the MMR-BS within the existing specification or the scope of 16j? Best Regards, Ching-Tarng Hsieh Information & Communications Research Labs/ITRI Tel: 886-3-591-7379, Fax: 886-3-582-0204 E-mail: chsieh@itri.org.tw ================================================ NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify us and delete this email immediately. We appreciate your cooperation. You should be aware that any unauthorized use, distribution or copying of said confidential information is strictly prohibited. ---------------- Original Message ---------------- > 李永台 <lyt@NMI.III.ORG.TW> 2006-06-28 02:07:39 PM wrote: 收件人: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org 主旨: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model contribution author list Kim, I believe that this sentence defines the scope of MMR. If we remove it, then there is no difference between MMR and "pico BS + ad hoc routing protocols". The scope of MMR had been defined clearly in MMR SG document 80216mmr-06_006.pdf. Youn-Tai Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "J Kim" <macsbug@RESEARCH.ATT.COM> To: <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:14 AM Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model contribution author list Jerry and all. I think the added sentence at the beginning of Section 6.3 (was 5.3) "In all of the usage models described in section 3, all data communications occur between the MMR-BS and MSs through zero or more RSs." is unnecessary along the lines of the discussions in the attached mail. At the current stage and especially for usage models, I see no reason to limit all traffic back to MMR-BS. I'm assumming I'm not the only one reading it to mean all user traffic must come to BS? I suggest removing it. Bests. "J" Kim ________________________________ From: Sydir, Jerry [mailto:jerry.sydir@INTEL.COM] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:30 PM To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org Subject: [MMR-AH-UM] Please review harmonized usage model contribution author list Dear Ad Hoc participants, In the latest revision of the harmonized Usage Model contribution, I have added the list of the ad hoc participants as co-authors of the document. I've included all those who expressed interest in the ad hoc group, participated in the calls, or sent emails on the mailing list expressing opinions on the contents. Please take a look at the list and send me an email if you have participated and I have missed you, or if you do not wish to have your name in the list. (Its probably sufficient to reply to me directly to me). The document can be found in the following location: http://dot16.org/CSUpload//upload/temp_db/C80216j%2d06_UMAHtemp_r5.doc <http://dot16.org/CSUpload/upload/temp_db/C80216j%2d06_UMAHtemp_r5.doc> . Best Regards, Jerry Sydir 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.