Tentative Minutes of the IEEE P802.21 Working Group s1

September 2005 21-05-0390-00-0000

IEEE P802
Media Independent Handover Services

Tentative Minutes of the IEEE P802.21 Working Group

September 22, 2005

Hyatt Regency Orange County, Garden Grove, CA, USA

Chair: Ajay Rajkumar

Vice Chair: Michael Glenn Williams

Secretary: Xiaoyu Liu

Fourth Day Meetings: Harbor Room; Thursday, September 22, 2005

1.  Meeting Called to Order by Ajay Rajkumar at 8:15AM

1.1.  Overview of the changed meeting agenda (21-05-0355-03-0000-session10_agenda.doc)

1.1.1.  No objection to the changed agenda.

2.  WG Presentations

2.1.  VCC Brief Introduction (21-05-0364-01-0000_VCC_Introduction.ppt , presented by Ulises Olvera, Interdigital)

2.1.1.  Comment: In order to support VCC, .21 must be able to monitor the CS. We can not carry .21 to CS without heavy changes.

2.1.2.  Comment: From the perspective of timeline, we might not be able to meet 3GPP-VCC deadlines.

2.2.  Network Controlled Network Selection and HO Scenarios (21-05-0366-01-0000-MIH_Network_Control_Scenarios.ppt, presented by Srinivas Sreemanthula, Nokia)

2.2.1.  Q: About the bootstrapping progress, are you suggesting network control? Or how do you do that initially? A: For example, let’s assume that a UE is already connected to a 3GPP network. It is the choice of the UE to select networks. Comment: That is UE controlled.

2.2.2.  Q: Are you suggesting that .21 should support these scenarios? A: These network controlled scenarios are already supported. Comment: We might also need CS/ES transport over higher layers to support these scenarios.

2.2.3.  Q: How to transfer contexts across radios in 3GPP networks? A: Context transfer is not discussed here.

2.2.4.  Comment: Slide 9, the diagram having .16 DL-BURST, as discussed, .21 will not touch anything below L3 on 3GPP side. We can not go directly into MAC layer. Response: There are three different MACs. 3G is not involved in the network selection on the UE side.

2.3.  CARD Protocol for 802.21 Information Service (21-05-0360-01-0000-CARD_Overview_2.ppt, presented by Ajoy Singh, Motoroal)

2.3.1.  Comment: From the point of IEEE 802 wireless as a group to IETF, all the protocols on the table should be evaluated and selected in the same way, not only one specific protocol. Response: Just help people to understand what has been done in IETF.

2.3.2.  Q: What kind of query CARD can provide, and what not? A: CARD has mechanisms to query information related to mobility. Not claim that CARD can be used for all the Information Service for any purpose. Comment: If there is some limitation, we need to understand that limitation.

2.3.3.  Ajay: In principle, 802.21 and IEEE can take a look at IETF protocols and evaluate them. We do not preclude the evaluation process. Whether the protocol is CARD or not is a different issue.

3.  Comment Resolution (D00-02_MasterFileNew.USR)

3.1.  The group discussed Comment #100.

3.2.  The group discussed Comment #101.

3.3.  Resolution of Comment #100 - #116 (Minutes taken by Subir Das)

3.3.1.  Comment #104

3.3.1.1.  Comment: No specific text was provided but the contributors to the text will bring a proposal on this in next plenary meeting and on that basis the current comment is withdrawn.

3.3.1.2.  Resolution: Withdrawn.

3.3.2.  Comment #105

3.3.2.1.  Comment: Same as above

3.3.2.2.  Resolution: Withdrawn.

3.3.3.  Comment #106

3.3.3.1.  Comment: Annex D is not bringing much value and if certain things are important, bring to the media specific section.

3.3.3.2.  Resolution: Annex stays with heading and decision is Accept-modify.

3.3.4.  Comment #107

3.3.4.1.  Comment: In the comment section, various things are defined and they do not belong here. However, the new table will be created and accordingly it will be reflected.

3.3.4.2.  Resolution: Harmonize with the new IE table; accepted-modified.

3.3.5.  Comment #108

3.3.5.1.  Vivek: Do people feel that we need this MIH_MGMT_SAP? Nothing is specified. Feel free to comment.

3.3.5.2.  Chair: Any discussion on this?

3.3.5.3.  Ajoy: RRC gives only information about RRC. But if we need any information regarding NAS/GMM/AS layer, we probably need this SAP.

3.3.5.4.  Chair: I would like to hear more on this.

3.3.5.5.  Ulises: I brought a contribution to 3GPP meeting and will revise it. So for the time being I would like to.

3.3.5.6.  Vivek: Change the name from MIH_MGMT_SAP to NAS_SAP and no problem in keeping it there for now.

3.3.5.7.  Chair: I would like to defer it and put editor’s note with a name change required.

3.3.5.8.  Resolution: Name change is required to reflect the purpose of the SAP, e.g., MIH_NAS_SAP, new contribution is needed to reflect this.

3.3.6.  Comment #109

3.3.6.1.  Ajoy: L3 Signaling means 3GPP2 signaling.

3.3.6.2.  Resolution: Name change is required to reflect the purpose of the SAP, e.g., MIH_NAS_SAP, new contribution is needed to reflect this.

3.3.7.  Comment #110

3.3.7.1.  Vivek: This is related to Section 7 and I don’t have any contribution now. Currently, the sections are not well organized. Change the outline of Section 7 to reflect the SAPs properly.

3.3.7.2.  Chair: What I would propose is to streamline the contribution in terms of section numbers and propose accordingly. Vivek will bring this contribution along this line.

3.3.7.3.  Chair: Is there any objection to reorganize the section?

3.3.7.4.  Qiaobing: I am in favor of this thing.

3.3.7.5.  Resolution: Future contribution For information.

3.3.8.  Comment #111

3.3.8.1.  Ronny: This comment is superseded by 101.

3.3.9.  Comment #112

3.3.9.1.  Resolution: This is superseded by 103.

3.3.10.  Comment #113

3.3.10.1.  Resolution: Accepted

3.3.11.  Comment # 114

3.3.11.1.  Resolution: Superseded by 103

3.3.12.  Comment # 115

3.3.12.1.  Resolution: Superseded by 104

3.4.  Discussions and Vote on Comment #117.

3.4.1.  Chair: In favor of the change proposed in Comment #117? (For: 4; Against: 2; Abstain: 16)

3.4.2.  Chair: Less than 75%. Vote Failed.

3.4.3.  Chair: Abstain does not count as ‘Against’.

3.5.  Discussions on Comment #118

3.6.  Comment #119 - Comment #122 were resolved

3.7.  Comment #123, Benjamin Koh presented the related contribution: 21-05-0368-00-0000-Technical_Contribution_Panasonic.ppt.

3.7.1.  Comment: The proposal is about a general format of the primitives.

3.7.2.  Comment #123 is accepted.

3.8.  Comment #124 – Comment #125 were resolved

3.9.  Comment #126 and Vote

3.9.1.  Chair: In favor of the proposed change? (For: 5; Against: 8; Abstain: 7)

3.9.2.  Ajay: Vote failed.

3.10.  Recess for lunch at 12:10AM

3.11.  Meeting called to order at 1:35PM

3.12.  Chair introduced the commentary tool and showed how to compile comments using this tool.

3.12.1.  The software used is “Commentary 1.55.zip”.

3.12.2.  Chair: Do not use ‘Technical, Binding’ for the comment. That would be dealt with in the ballot stage.

3.12.3.  Q: The page number is ‘pdf number’ or ‘file number’? Chair: ‘File page number’ means total number of the pages, including title, content, index, etc. “pdf page number’ is the number shown in the pdf file. Comment: Hard to know the ‘file page number’ if we use hard copies.

3.12.4.  Chair: We will use PDF page number; if there is no pdf page number, state the section number.

3.12.5.  Chair: Section numbers should be filled in order for sorting.

3.12.6.  Chair: Group decision would be done in face-to-face meetings.

3.12.7.  Chair: Use ‘export record’. Do not use the sponsor ballot. Do not touch the field.

3.12.8.  Chair: Export the record and send the chair with the file name DXX-XX-username.USR

3.12.9.  Chair: Contributors should follow the template for 802.21 contributions and request a DCN in advance before submitting a document.

3.12.10.  Suggestion: Prioritize things by some means, e.g., based on importance of work items, sequence of the whole document; or submitting date, etc.

3.13.  Discussions and Vote on Comment #128

3.13.1.  Chair: In favor of the comment as it is? (For: 3; Against: 4; Abstain: 10).

3.13.2.  Chair: Comment rejected.

3.14.  Comment #129 – Comment #131 resolved

3.15.  Comment by Eunah #1 (not merged to the Master File): Changes to Table 11.

3.15.1.  Discussions on this proposal

3.15.2.  Resolution of the group: Revisit this issue and resubmit.

3.16.  Eunah Comment #2: Assign a new value, ‘4 for Capability’

3.16.1.  Vote on this comment.

3.16.2.  Chair: In favor of this change? (For: 2; Against: 1; Abstain: 13)

3.16.3.  Chair: Comment rejected

3.17.  Eunah Comment #3: SupportedTransportList Proposal

3.17.1.  Resolution: Accepted with unanimous consent.

3.18.  Eunah Comment #4:

3.18.1.  Same content as Eunah’s comment #3

3.18.2.  Resolution: Accepted.

3.19.  Eunah Comment #5:

3.19.1.  Empty comment

3.20.  Eunah’s comments would be merged to the Master File later.

3.21.  Comment #132 - #134 resolved

3.22.  Chair updated the master commentary file taking the resolutions of the comments.

3.23.  Comment #78 - #90 were skipped because the proposer was absent.

3.24.  Chair: We would resolve the Comment #78-#90 and Comments with the number greater than #134 in the next meetings.

3.25.  Break from 3:50PM to 4:10PM.

4.  Procedural Works (Chair of IEEE 802.21)

4.1.  Ad Hoc Update: L2 Requirements for 802.11 (21-05-0350-02-0000-Req_Amendments_802_11.doc, presented by Vivek Gupta, Intel)

4.1.1.  Vivek outlined the teleconferences and went through the requirement document worked out by the Ad Hoc teleconferences.

4.1.2.  Q: What about new comments? A: Bring up to the teleconference, or the reflector.

4.2.  Ad Hoc Update: L2 Requirements for 802.16 (21-05-0335-02-0000-Req_Amendments_802_16.doc, presented by Vivek Gupta, Intel)

4.2.1.  Vivek went through the 802.16 requirement document.

4.2.2.  Ronny Kim explained the amendments to 802.16 specs in the document.

4.3.  Ad Hoc Update: Communication Model (21-05-0365-02-0000-communication_model_text_(draft).doc, presented by Qiaobing Xie, Motorola)

4.3.1.  The communication reference model was presented.

4.3.2.  Q: Are you presenting the conclusion of the Ad Hoc? It seems to be a new proposal. A: Minor changes. Comment: Better to present exactly the conclusion of the Ad Hoc.

4.3.3.  Comment: The box on the side is confusing. L2 access / L3 access are not accurate. That was not agreed in the Ad Hoc. We would like to see exactly the agreed diagram.

4.3.4.  The group has different views on the presented communication reference model.

4.3.5.  Comment: To approve the proposed picture is still premature. This document is still not acceptable.

4.3.6.  Comment: The presented document does not reflect some comments in the Ad Hoc meeting.

4.3.7.  Suggestion by Subir and seconded by Qiaobing: To hold teleconference to discuss this issue. Chair: Ok.

4.4.  Ad Hoc Schedule Discussions

4.4.1.  3GPP package has been approved.

4.4.2.  Straw Poll: How many people from Europe would participate the teleconferences? Floor: 2.

4.4.3.  Straw Poll: How many people from Asia would participate the teleconferences? Floor: 1

4.4.4.  Teleconference Time in conclusion: 9:00-11:00AM ET

4.5.  Liaison Report from 802.16 (21-05-0383-00-0000-802_16_Liaison_Sept05.ppt, by Ronny Kim, LGE)

4.6.  Liaison Report from 802.11 (DCN: 21-05-381-00-0000, by David Hunter)

4.7.  Ad Hoc Schedule Announcement

4.7.1.  All times are from 9:00 to11:00AM ET

4.7.2.  3GPP2 Liaison Package

4.7.2.1.  September 28, 2005

4.7.2.2.  October 6, 2005

4.7.2.3.  October 13, 2005.

4.7.3.  3GPP Requirements

4.7.3.1.  October 4, 2005

4.7.3.2.  October 20, 2005.

4.7.4.  Higher Layer Requirements

4.7.4.1.  October 11, 2005

4.7.4.2.  October 25, 2005.

4.7.5.  802.11 Requirements

4.7.5.1.  November 3, 2005

4.7.5.2.  November 10, 2005

4.7.6.  802.16 Requirements

4.7.6.1.  October 27, 2005.

4.7.7.  Communication Model

4.7.7.1.  October 18, 2005.

4.8.  Future Sessions

4.8.1.  Plenary: November 13th – 18th, Hyatt Regency

4.8.1.1.  Vancouver, BC, Canada. Co-located with all 802 groups

4.8.2.  Interim: January 15th – 20th, Hilton Waikoloa Village

4.8.2.1.  Big island, HI USA. Meeting co-located with 802.11/15/18/19/20/22

4.8.3.  Plenary: March 12th – 17th, Hyatt Regency

4.8.3.1.  TBD - An alternate to this meeting venue is currently being worked at

4.8.4.  Interim: May 14th – 19th, Hyatt Regency

4.8.4.1.  Jacksonville, FL, USA. Meeting co-located with 802.11/15/18/19/20/22

4.9.  Future Locations being Considered

4.9.1.  January 2007 – London

4.9.2.  September 2006 – may not be in Prague or Istanbul, if Jan 2007 is decided to be in London

4.10.  New or Unfinished Business

4.10.1.  Q: Can we have teleconferences for the rest of unresolved comment so that we move forward before the plenary meetings? Chair: The current teleconference agenda is full. 3GPP2 teleconference schedule may not be used completely. If 3GPP2 package can get done and there would still be some slots, we might announce teleconferences for the comments. But Voting would not take place in Ad Hoc teleconferences.

4.11.  Chair adjourned the meetings at 6:05PM

5.  Adjourn until November 2005 Plenary in Canada

6.  Attendees

6.1.  Attendees (1 - 4 credits towards voting rights today)

Minutes page 7 Xiaoyu Liu