FW: RE : August 3rd ad hoc on requirements

["Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM>]

Forwarding to the group.
-Vivek

|-----Original Message-----
|From: NJEDJOU Eric RD-RESA-REN [mailto:eric.njedjou@francetelecom.com]
|Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:48 AM
|To: Reijo Salminen; Peretz Feder; Gupta, Vivek G;
|Alan.Carlton@InterDigital.com
|Cc: ajayrajkumar@lucent.com
|Subject: RE : August 3rd ad hoc on requirements
|
|Hello Folks,
|Fist, I have not cced the whole group
|I would like to bring a couple of amendments to section 6.2 IEEE 802 and
|Non-802 Cellular sub section 6.2.1
|
|Peretz, in that section you wrote
|
|"In UTRAN, Service Access Points (SAP) are used for communication among all
|the sublayers. Layer 2.5 functions could be distributed across the UTRAN
|MAC, RLP and RRC layers and provide the interfaces mentioned in section 6
|through new or existing SAPs".
|
|I think we have to remember that UTRAN RF, MAC or RLC/RRC layers are of
|importance to the intra UMTS mobility management procedures (i.e between
|Nodes B and RNC) and thoses issues are out of scope of the current
|considerations of 802.21 as we are dealing with inter-technology handover.
|At a pinch, we could have a SAP between PHY and layer 2.5 to report
|dropping signal strenght but that's all. Another point is that I am not
|sure we should start suggesting to distribute layer 2.5 throughout the 3GPP
|stack. Our requests for modifications should remain light
|
|I then sugest to drop that first part of the paragraph and modify the last
|one as follows
|
|"A new 2.5 layer could be introduced on top of the MS side UTRAN
|control/user plane stack and exchange information through new SAPs with
|GMM/SM and PDCP layers. This concept is captured below. This requirement
|document is not attempting to redefine the 3GPP control/user plane but
|rather proposes new SAPs that in affect provide the required layer 2.5
|functionality while enabling MIH across heterogeneous networks."
|
|I have also attached the reference stack I suggest for 6.2 - 3GPP
|I will be presenting a contribution on this point in berlin
|
|Regards
|Eric Njedjou
|
|> -----Message d'origine-----
|> De : owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
|> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] De la part de
|> Reijo Salminen
|> Envoyé : mardi 3 août 2004 17:56
|> À : Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com; STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
|> Objet : RE: August 3rd ad hoc on requirements
|>
|>
|> Michael,
|>
|> Regarding the first question - I mean that it could be
|> possible for the 802.21 proposals to choose where the
|> handover decision is made in different situations. I assume
|> that the RNC/BSC is the controlling entity also in the
|> scenarios 4/5 as it is in the corresponding base products.
|>
|> I would say that it is an architectural issue until it is
|> better known what network impacts the proposed scenarios have
|> in more detail.
|>
|> Best Regards, Reijo
|>
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com
|> [mailto:Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com]
|> Sent: 3. elokuuta 2004
|> 18:41
|> To: reijo.salminen@seesta.com; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
|> Subject: RE: August 3rd ad hoc on requirements
|>
|> You intimate that .21 would have greater freedom to support
|> 3GPP by not using Scenarios 4 & 5 as requirements. Can you
|> speculate how would we have more freedom?
|>
|> Regarding .21  creating a requirement which would then be too
|> burdensome on 3GPP/PP2 in order to conform, your insight is
|> valuable. We need to structure the standard so that doesn't
|> happen. The specific item you raise doesn't appear to be an
|> architectural issue, does it?
|>
|> Let's add this issue to the ad hoc's agenda, and if not
|> addressed today, then on a subsequent call.
|>
|> Best Regards,
|> Michael
|>

IEEE 802 and Non 802 Cellular Reference model.doc