May 2006 21-06-0670-00-0000
IEEE P802
Media Independent Handover Services
Tentative Minutes of the IEEE P802.21 Working Group
Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront, Jacksonville, FL, USA
Chair: Vivek Gupta
Vice Chair: Michael Glenn Williams
Secretary: Xiaoyu Liu
First Day Meetings: Grand Ballroom 6; Monday, May 15th, 2006
1. Meeting Opening (Chair of IEEE 802.21WG)
1.1. Meeting called to order by Vivek Gupta, Chair of IEEE 802.21WG at 1:37PM.
1.2. Meeting Agenda (21-06-0660-00-0000-Session14_Jacksonville_Agenda.doc)
1.2.1. Chair: Any modification to the agenda? Floor: none.
1.2.2. Chair: Any objection to approve the agenda? Floor: none.
1.2.2.1. Agenda was approved with unanimous consent.
1.3. IEEE 802.21 Session #14 Opening Notes (21-06-0662-00-0000-WGsession14_opening_notes.ppt)
1.3.1. Network information for the documents
1.3.1.1. External website: http://www.ieee802.org/21
1.3.1.2. Meeting website: http://802server/21
1.3.1.3. Alternate website: http://10.128.0.11/21
1.3.1.4. Chair: The internal server has some problems. Participants may send contributions to Chair and request Chair to upload them onto the external server.
1.3.1.5. No question.
1.3.2. Attendance and voting membership were presented.
1.3.3. WG Letter Ballot presented – No question.
1.3.4. IEEE 802 rules of order presented – No response
1.3.5. Robert’s rules presented – No response
1.3.6. Miscellaneous Meeting Logistics were presented
1.3.7. Registration and media recording policy presented
1.3.8. Membership & Anti-Trust presented – No response
1.3.9. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards were presented – No response
1.3.10. Slide on discussions which are inappropriate was also presented. – No response
1.3.11. Copyright and IEEE Bylaw Changes were presented.
1.3.12. The slide on Letter of Assurance (LoA) was presented
1.3.12.1. Chair: Any LoA submitted to the Chair? Floor: None.
1.3.13. Chair: How many attend IEEE 802.21 WG meetings for the first time? Floor: 7
1.3.14. Aims for the session presented
1.3.14.1. WG Secretary and Editor Appointment
1.3.14.2. Letter Ballot #1 Comment Resolution: Technical and Editorial
1.3.14.3. Interaction with other 802 groups and external SDOs
1.3.14.3.1. L3 Transport requirements to IETF
1.3.14.3.2. 3GPP/3GPP2 next steps discussion
1.3.14.3.3. Discussions with FMCA
1.3.15. Future Sessions
1.4. Approval of March Plenary Meeting Minutes (21-06-0594-01-0000-802_MIHS_minutes_2006_Mar_Plenary.doc)
1.4.1. Chair: Any modification to the March plenary meeting minutes? Floor: none.
1.4.2. Chair: Any objections to approve the March plenary meeting minutes with unanimous consent? Floor: none
1.4.2.1. The March plenary meeting minutes was approved with unanimous consent.
1.5. Q: What about the Ad Hoc meeting minutes? Chair: Some Ad Hoc meeting minutes are available, some not yet. Will go ahead and upload them to the web server.
2. WG Officer Appointment Process
2.1. IEEE 802.21 WG Secretary Appointment
2.1.1. Candidate: Xiaoyu Liu
2.1.2. Chair: Any objection to approve the appointment of Xiaoyu Liu as Secretary of IEEE 802.21WG? Floor: none
2.1.2.1. The appointment was approved with unanimous consent.
2.2. IEEE 802.21 WG Technical Editor Appointment
2.2.1. Candidate: Qiaobing Xie
2.2.2. Chair: Any objection to approve the appointment of Qiaobing Xie as the Technical Editor of IEEE 802.21WG? Floor: none
2.2.2.1. The appointment was approved with unanimous consent.
3. Discussions on Ad Hoc meetings
3.1. Chair presented the F2F Ad Hoc logistics (21-06-0663-00-0000-Ad_Hoc_Meeting.ppt)
3.1.1. Comment: A summary of the dialogs in the F2F Ad Hoc should be available. People would know what is going on there. Chair: Yes. We would make such summary available.
3.1.2. Q: F2F Ad Hoc is not an official meeting. Would the results be shared by the WG? Chair: Yes.
3.1.3. Q: What about a series of teleconferences? Chair: The teleconferences do not work well to resolve a large number of comments. We have lots of comments. Given the number of comments we received, F2F Ad Hoc may be more efficient.
3.1.4. Q: How many people would attend the F2F Ad Hoc? Q: How many days for the F2F Ad Hoc? Chair: We would discuss it later. The first thing we need to decide is whether or not we need such Ad Hoc. 3 days could probably be preferable.
3.1.5. Q: If we have another Ad Hoc, do you believe we can resolve all these comments? Chair: If we do not have such Ad Hoc, we have to wait for another meeting in July. This Ad Hoc can make progress.
3.1.6. Comment: As far as the logistics are concerned, it would have to be approved by WG. Regarding the schedule, maybe we could consider this after July plenary meetings when a new recirculation starts. Chair: If we do not have this meeting in June, we may have to wait until July to resolve the remaining comments.
3.1.7. Q: Can we have an authorized ballot in the meeting? Chair: Need to check other WGs how to deal with it. Ad Hoc allows us to meet and discuss.
3.2. MOTION: Motion the 802.21 WG to hold an ad hoc interim meeting in June 2006
3.2.1. Q: What is date for this meeting? Chair: First we decide whether we need this, then we decide the date and the location.
3.2.2. Comment: People need to know the possible weeks to decide whether to attend. Response: The discussions on date and location could be subjective. We separate the discussions: whether to have; and where/when to have.
3.2.3. Q: Is there another motion at the end of this meeting for the date of meeting? A: We may have subjective discussions and do not need a motion for that.
3.2.4. Chair: This is not a technical vote. Only 50% is required to pass.
3.2.5. Moved by: Xiaoyu Liu
3.2.6. Seconded by: Subir Das
3.2.7. Yes: 16; No: 0; Abstain: 7
3.2.8. Chair: Motion passes.
3.3. MOTION: Motion the 802.21 WG to hold an ad hoc interim meeting if required in August 2006
3.3.1. Comment: Can we do this in July? Chair: If we plan right now, we give people more time to prepare.
3.3.2. Comment: It is too early to discuss it now. Chair: Ok. We can delay this.
3.4. Straw Poll: June Ad Hoc Meeting Date
3.4.1. Week of June 5th, 2006: Floor: 4
3.4.2. Week of June 12th, 2006, Floor: 5
3.4.3. Week of June 19th, 2006: Floor: 7
3.5. Straw Poll: Locations of June Ad Hoc Meeting
3.5.1. Singapore: 11
3.5.2. Detroit: 3
3.5.3. Hvittrask (Finland): 3
3.5.4. Portland: 3.
3.6. Straw Poll: How many are in favor of the meeting in Singapore on the week of June 19th 2006? Floor: 12
3.6.1. Chair: The F2F Ad Hoc meeting would probably be held on the week of June 19th 2006 in Singapore. The schedule would be sent to the reflector sometime later this week. We may bring this issue back again.
3.7. Break from 2:52PM to 3:23PM
4. WG Presentations
4.1. LB#1 Comment Summary (21-06-0655-01-0000-LB1_Comment_Summary.ppt, by Vivek Gupta, Chair of IEEE 802.21WG)
4.1.1. Chair summarized the LB#1 Voting results.
4.1.2. Discussions on the procedure to deal with the comments followed.
4.1.3. Comment: Grouping the comments into clusters may help the process.
4.1.4. Comment: Suggest that the technical editor lists the key editorial comments and upload the list onto the server. The group may see whether these comments are pure editorial or not. Chair: Ok. The editor deals with the editorial comments so as to save the WG meeting time.
4.1.5. Comment: In many cases, some comments seem to be editorial, but the group feels not. The group and editor may have different views on these comments.
4.1.6. Comment: Commenter may have a chat with editor to discuss the comment categories and resolutions. Chair: Editor may note the discussion and resolution in the commentary tool.
4.1.7. Chair: We would not spend time on editorial comments in this meeting. We would let editor go through the editorial comments and come up with a list. We may focus on the technical comments in this meeting.
4.1.8. Chair: The group will discuss the technical-binding comments and make decisions. If some comments lead to long discussions, we may table these comments and keep track of them or assign them to small groups. The participants are encouraged to submit reply and contributions to address these comments.
4.1.9. Q: What about technical non-binding comments? A: The number of such comments is small. Many of them are related to the technical binding comments. We may resolve them in the procedure of technical binding comments. We may deal with them as the second part.
4.2. MIH Higher Layer Transport Requirements (21-06-0603-02-0000-mih-hl-reqs-v1.doc, by Srinivas Sreemanthula,Nokia)
4.2.1. Srinivas presented the MIH Higher Layer Transport Requirements.
4.2.2. Discussions on the HL Transport Requirements followed. Srinivas updated the requirement documents based on the comments.
4.3. 802.11/802.16 MIH Handover Procedures (21-06-0656-00-0000-WLAN_WMAN_HO_Procedures.doc, presented by Xiaoyu Liu, Samsung, minutes taken by Michael Williams)
4.3.1. Q:DoestheMNgetthe802.16Neighborreport in Page4?A: No.
4.3.2. Q:DoyouneedtogettheNeighborhoodReportsincetheNRisdirect? A:Youwon’tneedMIHbecausethe.16networkwillbelicensed.
4.3.3. Q: What about overlapping .16 BS? A: Should be little or of no difference with the overlapping cases.
4.3.4. Discussion about how the various media will implement something like 802.21 so perhaps there is no need to consult MIIS when the info is available through a scan of local.
4.3.5. Comment that licensed bands are more power efficient and scanning is easy and cheap on power so it’s better to just do that than to consult the MIIS.
4.3.6. CommentthatISdoesn’tprovidedynamicinformation.
4.3.7. Comment that some vendors discuss publishing dynamic info via .21 IS format directly from the .11 AC where the radio is there to quickly gather the info.
4.3.8. Comment we are discussing scenarios where the IS is helpful. The helpfulness may vary from factor to factor. Haven’t we already decided that MIIS is in general useful in enough scenarios?
4.3.9. Due to time limit the discussion was ended.
5. Recess at 6:12PM
5.1. Second day meetings on Tuesday, 8:00AM
Second Day Meetings: Grand Ballroom 6; Tuesday, March 16th, 2006
6. Meeting called to order by Vivek Gupta at 8:09AM
7. Agenda Update
7.1. Chair updated the agenda (21-06-0660-01-0000-Session14_Jacksonville_Agenda.doc)
7.1.1. Move the unfinished 3GPP contribution on Monday to Wednesday
7.1.2. Take the QoS Proposal out because the presenter was absent
7.1.3. Chair: Any other changes? Floor: None.
7.1.3.1. Agenda was approved with unanimous consent.
8. Letter Ballot Comment & Resolution on Section 5 (21-06-0647-03-0000_LB1_Comments.USR)
8.1. Resolution of the Comment #90
8.1.1. Related contribution was brought up: 21-06-0598-00-0000-QoSProposal.doc.
8.1.2. The comments related to the contribution were deferred because the presenters were absent.
8.2. Editorial comments were skipped and passed to Technical Editor.
8.3. Resolution of Comment #93-#101
8.4. Group discussions on Comment #102 and resolution
8.4.1. Related comment #17 was discussed.
8.5. Resolution of Comment #103 - #108
8.6. Break from 10:10AM to 10:37AM
8.7. Resolution of the Comment #108
8.7.1. Discussions on the comments followed.
8.7.2. Comment was rejected.
8.8. Resolution of the Comment #110-#118
8.9. Chair took the resolutions of the comments and updated the commentary master file.
8.10. Recess for Lunch from 12:10PM to 1:10PM
9. Presentation
9.1. QoS considerations in Network Initiated Handovers (21-06-0664-00-0000-QoS_considerations_in_NIHO_v3.ppt, presented by Albert Vidal, NEC)
9.1.1. Q: Which network entity initiates and generate the messages for QoS parameter changes? A: POA in the network.
9.1.2. Q: Slide 3, first two bullets, do you expect MME can get the info and make handover decision? Could you estimate the frequency of such info sent to the POA? A: Some parameters like signal strength are fast-changing, so it does not make sense to send such info to the network. There are some scenarios in which one operator might probably enforce the users to move from one network to another. In that case, the QoSParameterList may not necessarily be complete.
9.1.3. General discussions followed.
9.2. Initial feedback by FMCA on IEEE 802.21 questions (21-06-0659-00-0000-FMCA May Liaison Updatev1.ppt, presented by Rodrigo Donazzolo, FMCA, and Rob Glassford, BT)
9.2.1. Rodrigo and Rob presented the FMCA feedbacks on 802.21 draft specs.
9.2.2. Comment: How to use 802.21 services is an implementation specific issue.
9.2.3. Q: Does operators expect to see how 802.21 fits 3GPP IMS? That is something we never discussed here. A: Yes. It is in the stage of discussion.
9.2.4. Chair: We need to understand and address the questions by FMCA.
9.2.5. Comment: Geographical information is included in MIIS IEs. The MIIS query/response still works without the geographical information in the query. It is up to the terminal whether or not to include the geographical information in the query as the condition to retrieve the information.
9.2.6. Comment: Regarding geographical location info, document 21-06-0606-00-000 has some discussions on such use cases.
9.2.7. Q: Does FMCA expect .21 to specify some mechanisms for building and maintaining databases of ‘neighboring network’? A: yes.
9.2.8. Comment: .11 and .16 may tell terminals the location of AP. Response: A few points were raised, but we do not have answer yet.
9.2.9. Q: Would it be vulnerable if AP location is exposed?
9.2.10. Comment: “UE Display of Available Wireless Networks”, that is implementation specific. Comment: Some operator would not like their users to display certain parameters. That’s not the issue of 802.21. Comment: We may reword the question like: ‘what parameters would like to be used to make handover decision’.
9.2.11. Comment: For MIIS, what addressed in the spec is IE, IE representation and query/response.
9.2.12. Break from 3:02PM to 3:40PM
9.2.13. Discussion continued.
9.2.14. Rodrigo: We look forward to working with .21. We’d like to continue the two-day dialogs.
10. Letter Ballot Comment & Resolution on Section 5 (21-06-0647-03-0000_LB1_Comments.USR)
10.1. Editorial comments #119 - #125 were skipped and passed to Editor.
10.2. Resolution of the Comment #126
10.3. Resolution of the Comment #127 - #128
10.4. Editorial comments #129 - #139 were skipped and passed to Editor
10.5. Resolution of the Comment #140 - #145
10.6. Break from 5:50PM to 6:05PM
10.7. Resolution of the Comment #145
10.7.1. General discussions followed on the capabilities to support MIHF communications between the network entities.
10.7.2. Straw Poll: How many are in favor of keeping the capabilities to support MIHF communications between the network entities? Floor: 8.