Tentative Minutes of the IEEE P802.21 Working Group

January 14March 18, 2004 doc.: 00-04-00XX-00-0000

IEEE P802
Wired and Wireless LANs Handoff

Tentative Minutes of the IEEE P802.21 Working Group

March 18, 2004

Hilton, Lake Buena Vista, Florida

Chair: D.J. Johnston

Vice Chair: Ajay Rajkumar

Secretary: Michael Glenn Williams

Third Day Meeting: Wednesday, March 18, 2004

1.  Meeting opening

1.1.  Call to order, Agenda bashing

1.1.1.  Meeting called to order by DJ Johnston 9:00.

1.1.2.  Agenda stands from day 1.

1.1.3.  Review of attendance and voting rights.

1.2.  Process Presentation: (Development Plan Options) (DJ Johnston, Intel)

1.2.1.  Seems to be more traction for doing a L2.5 architecture.

1.2.2.  Suggests that cellular could wait until after the Triggers, Handover Information and information transport.

1.2.3.  Q: L2.5 would feed into the other work yes? A: Not sure.

1.2.4.  Q: For example how would the upper layer consume the triggers without an L2.5 definition? A: There are at least two options, we just define these things for the existing MAC to generate; we create te intermediate layer and the interface to it, and the upper layer has to adapt to that layer.

1.2.5.  C: Bad to do everything in serial. Need some parallel work.

1.2.6.  C: It could turn out that of the three chunks of work, one might be so long that it constrains the others.

1.2.7.  C: We might ask the 802 to take on the L2.5 definition and we do only apart of it, 802.1AE/AF do security, etc.

1.2.8.  C: Wouldn’t 802.1AE/AF need use cases to do threat analysis?

1.2.9.  C: Stuart Kerry announced we would be getting into higher layers architecturally.

1.2.10.  DJ Shyy requests poll

1.3.  Report on presentation to 802.1AF (Michael Williams, Nokia)

1.3.1.  Great interest, felt there was some commonality in several areas including our notions of L2.5, hints, feeling that a class of information is valuable and yet should have no security (because it’s pre-associative.)

1.3.2.  C: It could create an interesting work item for us with key generation varying so greatly from cellular to 802.

1.3.3.  .

1.4.  Technical presentation Trust Flagging (doc xxx) (DJ Johnston, Intel)

1.4.1.  IETF has said the incorrect triggers need to be mostly correct (perhaps 99.9%) before it will help performance.

1.4.2.  Q: Would this apply to all signaling? A: Yes. The local MAC generated items are trusted without question, the transmitted ones are at issue.

1.4.3.  C: Could it be marked as everything by a peer is trusted, or per trigger message? A: Suspect trust is associated to the link.

1.4.4.  C: We must avoid doing a security spec.

1.4.5.  C: Suggest we ask .1AE/AF to provide the security for us. C: Yes but some of there work would prevent communication before association.

1.4.6.  C: We need discovery mechanism or registration that would also be pre associative.

1.4.7. 

1.5.  Technical presentation : Scenarios (doc 21-04-xxxx-00-suggested-architectures-handover-scenarios.ppt) (DJ Shyy, MITRE, also Liu and Park, SAMSUNG)

1.5.1.  Motions will be made this afternoon after people have voting rights.

1.5.2.  C: Discuss Scenario 1: .3 & .11. The .3 service is closer to .16 than the .11. The more general approach is 802 to 802, trying to be independent of specific pairs of technologies.

1.5.3.  C: Yes there are some differences which are “greater” than others across the 802 technologies. Also, the cellular should be expressed differently, since 20 may encompass cellular.

1.5.4.  C: Yes we should specify 3GPP separately, 3GPP2 etc. Also, trigger, decision assistance should depend on coupling model.

1.5.5.  C: Mobile IP works well with loose coupling. We are being requested to facilitate that on any technologies.

1.5.6.  Q: Does tight coupling here mean the same thing as in the earlier presentation by this author.

1.5.7.  Q: Scenario 2 doesn’t include tight coupling because the industry refuses to do tight coupling.

1.5.8.  C: Yes the coupling models have been discussed for 6 years. 3GPP/PP2 started with loose coupling. Refused is a bit strong of a term.

1.5.9.  C: One way of doing the work might be to develop a base document which defines how each technology should specify the .21 interfaces. Then we might ask the different standards groups to fill in theirs to be 802.21 conformant and add the document either to ours or as an appendix to theirs.

1.5.10.  C: We need something written down now so people can bring proposals next time.

1.5.11.  C: The media independent part needs to be done first, then we can do the media dependent parts next.

1.5.12.  C: What time frame is this proposal looking at? In the earlier presentation, it suggested to include SIM type device, but we don’t expect 802.11 devices to have SIM type devices. Better for us to identify the areas of work first through discussion.

1.5.13.  Q: How long would the discussion go? A: We should try to have a requirements doc by the end of next meeting.

1.5.14.  C: We will have a description of what loose coupling meets in the doc won’t we.

1.5.15.  C: Let’s start with this proposal as an outline for the requirements but not make it a motion.

1.5.16.  C: Everyone should contribute to this document.

1.5.17.  We have a certain format to use so this submission is in the wrong format. We need text for each of these headings.

1.6.  Call for volunteers for liaisons (Michael Williams, Nokia)

1.6.1.  Please contact the chairs as soon as possible.

1.6.2.  DJ Johnston has volunteered for 802.16.

1.6.3.  Ajay Rajkumar volunteers for 3GPP & 3GPP2.

1.6.4.  Statements representing the 802 body must be in writing and approved by the SEC. A lighter weight process can be used for discussions representing the WG only.

1.7.  Technical presentation: Glossary Outline (DJ Johnston, Intel)

1.7.1.  It will be on the server. Update the document and submit your updates.

1.8.  Procedural presentation: Voting and election explanation (DJ Johnston, Intel)

1.8.1.  Tokens will be given based on attendance.

1.8.2.  We’ll start the election at 2:00.

1.9.  Voting (DJ Johnston, Intel)

1.9.1.  Meeting called to order at 2:00PM.

1.9.2.  Review of voting rules of the 802 LMSC.

1.9.3.  Candidates were announced on Monday.

1.9.4.  Ajay Rajkumar and Michael Williams elected to Chair and Vice Chair.

1.9.5.  .

1.10.  Technical Contribution: Draft Technical Requirements (DJ Shyy, MITRE)

1.10.1.  Discussion that triggers need to be included.

1.10.2.  Comments to add scenarios.

1.10.3.  C: WIEN group may overlap. R: We should work together and avoid overlap.

1.10.4.  C: We could accept this as our working plan at the next meeting.

1.10.5.  Q: What if we have multiple architecture proposals? A: We would vote on it.

1.10.6.  C: These topics are often in different docs in other standards. R: we could start with this and split it up later. C: A lot of agreement on this.

1.10.7.  C: The list of authors shouldn’t have their companies in it.

1.10.8.  Q: Could we change scenarios to use cases? A: Yes no problem.

1.10.9.  Q: Could these be called working draft? A: No that is a special term for a draft standard.

1.10.10.  C: We need hints to be mentioned. This can be added on the reflector.

1.10.11.  Q: How would text be added to this? A: If it is approved through a motion by getting 50%, as non-draft text, then anyone can add to it until the May meeting.

1.10.12.  DJ Shyy makes the motion, 2nd Dave McGinnis. Discussion to have it open and the group empowered to work on it until May. Any changes made before May will be confirmed then. Accepted by unanimous consent.

1.10.13.  .

1.11.  Appointment to Editor

1.11.1.  Vivek Gupta is appointed by chair DJ Johnston.

1.11.2.  No objections or other volunteers.

.

1.12.  Website information

1.12.1.  http://ieee802.org/handoff .

1.12.2.  Submissions to the website must still be made by emailing to reflector.

1.13.  Next Meeting, Interim Meetings

1.13.1.  Interim May 9-14, Hyatt Anaheim w 802.11/15

1.13.2.  Plenary July 11-16 Portland Hilton, OR

1.13.3.  Interim Sept , Nov (14-19 San Antonio) see the IEEE website.

1.14.  Adjourn

1.14.1.  C: Motion to adjourn Hong Cheng, Dave 2nd, unanimously agreed.

1.15.  Attendees (getting 0,1,2 credits towards voting rights)

Minutes page 1 Michael Glenn Williams, Nokia

January 14March 18, 2004 doc.: 00-04-00XX-00-0000

Asher Altman 1

Keith Amann 1

Takashi Aramaki 2

Sanjeev Athalye 2

Harry Bims 0

Alistair Buttar 2

Alan Carlton 2

Yong Chang 2

Aik Chindapol 2

Steven Crowley 2

Stefano Faccin 1

Lars Falk 2

Peretz Feder 1

Ruben Formoso 2

Yuri Goldstein 2

Qiang Guo 0

Vivek Gupta 2

James Han 2

Younhee Han 2

Takanari Hayama 1

Eleanor Hepworth 2

Michael HogHooghi 2

Cheng Hong 2

David Hunter 2

David Huo 1

Shinkichi Ikeda 2

Prakash Iyer 0

Yeong Min Jang 1

Ho-in Jeon 0

David Johnston 2

Tyan-Shu Jou 0

Naveen Kakani 2

Allen Kasey 2

Toyoyuki Kato 2

Farrokh Khatibi 1

Byoung-Jo Kim 1

Ted Kuo 0

Masahiro Kuroda 2

Ming Lai 1

Jie Lang 1

B.J. Lee 2

Insun Lee 1

Wei Lih Lim 1

Xiaoyu Liu 2

Rahul Malik 1

Taisuke Matsumoto 2

Stephen McCann 1

David McGinniss 1

Max Miyazono 1

Patrick Mourot 2

Mullaguru Naidu 2

Chiu Ngo 1

Fran O’Brien 2

Akira Okubo 2

Soohong Park 2

Vincent D. Park 2

Jani Preetida 1

Ajay Rajkumar 2

Maximillian Riegel 2

Stefan Rommer 2

Takashi Sakakura 2

Maria Sanchez 1

Mike Sanderson 0

Emek Sadot 1

Chris Seagren 2

Ian Sherlock 0

Dong-Jye Shyy 1

Floyd Simpson 2

Tricci So 0

SK Sung 0

Pek Yew Tang 2

Lai-Ling (Anna) Tee 1

Sandy Turner 0

Stephen Wang 2

Jim Wendt 0

Michael Williams 2

Lily Yang 1

Minutes page 1 Michael Glenn Williams, Nokia