Yogesh& Alistair resolutions: Comments on 802.21 Requirements document

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Comments on 802.21 Draft Technical Requirements (Doc. 21-04-0087-05-0000)

1. Section 1.2 - add text '802.21 should facilitate upper layer mobility management' - withdrawn after discussion

2. Section 1.2 - information passing between mobile stations and base stations must be secure, however encryption should not be part of 802.21 - met by P Feder comment . Comment modified to change the word interface to something like "bearer" (ACTION P Feder & editor)

3. Section 2.1 - add text "While use cases for handover should allow a wide applicability of the 802.21 standard, the particular examples of WLAN-cellular interworking scenarios 4 and 5 as specified by 3GPP should be facilitated" - Add to section 5.2. Will have presentation in Berlin from S. McCann. We may want the SDO to be able to draft their own .21 document, that way they can complete requirements in their own time.

4. Section 3.4 - need clear definitions of network discovery, detection and attachment - Vivek propose definitions, add to definitions section. Be careful to refer to DNA but not to adopt it without review.

5. Sections 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 - propose to sollicite reasoning behind the need for these sections - agreed to delete these three bullets . Deleting Power management was discussed but decided to be kept.

3.8 Cost

Define what is meant by Cost. Is it cost of the end product (out of scope) or cost of implementation or execution time overhead (in terms of bandwidth, computation time etc.).

Include additional text clarifying the purpose of this section or delete it.

3.9 Link Utilization

Too vague a requirement without an explanation. Include additional text clarifying what is intended. Is the purpose to maximize link utilization subject to some constraints (that are yet unspecified). Since there are multiple access networks, should all of them bemaximally utilized or some. If so, which ones?

3.10 User Experience

Too vague. Include additional text clarifying the purpose of this section or delete it.

6. Section 3.12 - While it is reasonable to mention the need for handover policy in an overall system implementation, the policy implementation function itself is outside the scope of 802.21 - Delete bullets change to:

The standard shall be agnostic to handover policies. Handover policy will not be defined by the standard. Also, move the meaning of the first bullet to 3.3 QoS.

7. Section 5 the standard shall not preclude any type of cohesion or coupling between different networks as required by higher layer services - change shall support to shall facilitate

8. Section 7.1 should be removed since it is improper to reference some submissions and not others - Add sections to 7 for the other parts of the architecture

9. The proposal to split the requirements document into three parts is a good one and should help the standardization process by breaking the overall task down into substeps - Not discussed