Re: [802.21] Ad hoc group on evaluation - Soliciting contributionsto developing Usage Models/Scenarios
Hi!
Experiments and verifications are of course important but do we have
enough resources to dedicate to the meta-usage models and get consensus
before the Jan meeting?
Perhaps we should prioritise the items and cover meta-usage models if
time allows or consensus is achieved that they are high priority.
Just $0.02.
Regards,
Ben
Vikrant Shyamkant Kaulgud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think its a valid point. However documenting basic applicability
> statements for key meta usage models, performance measures etc. would
> not hurt. They could give experimenters a basic foundation on which to
> base their experiments and impose some uniformity in the way experiments
> are run and results reported. Probably would make the task of evaluation
> a bit simpler.
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> Regards,
> Vikrant.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] *On Behalf Of *Cheng Hong
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 08, 2004 8:41 AM
> *To:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> *Subject:* Re: [802.21] Ad hoc group on evaluation - Soliciting
> contributionsto developing Usage Models/Scenarios
>
> Hi Nada and all,
>
> I thought the discussion was concluded that we need some basic set
> of scenarios to help us deciding what/how many call flows diagrams
> to provide.
>
> However, it seems that the usage scenarios mentioned in the below
> e-mail are some specific scenarios for simulation/implementation
> with some specific details, e.g. application, traffic
> characteristic, performance measures. I think that is beyond what we
> need at this stage, instead is more for what you said "at a later
> stage - after harmonization has occurred" What's more I think it
> would be hard for the group to agree on the details of the scenarios
> at this stage, e.g. 1, 4&5 of your list, since there could be many
> variations of those parameters which are upto deployment and
> implementation.
>
> So, I feel we should concentrate more on the basic of the scenarios,
> e.g. what is the network relationship, who initiates the handover
> (e.g. network init, terminal init), i.e. item 2 & 3 and others. How
> do you think about this?
>
> Cheers
>
> Cheng Hong
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] *On Behalf Of *Nada
> Golmie
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 08, 2004 6:52 AM
> *To:* stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> *Cc:* Nada Golmie
> *Subject:* Ad hoc group on evaluation - Soliciting contributions
> to developing Usage Models/Scenarios
>
> Dear all,
>
> To follow-up on our telecon discussion this morning, the
> evaluation ad hoc group would like to solicit volunteers to develop
> a set of usage case models & scenarios to be included in the
> evaluation guidelines document.
>
> Although the consensus was that *_no_* performance analyses,
> modeling, and simulation results will be required for the proposal
> down-selection process, there is some value to develop template
> scenarios in order to allow for simulation modeling / prototype
> implementation at a later stage - after harmonization has occurred.
>
> Usage scenarios should include enough details to allow for an
> experimenter to collect performance measures using either
> simulation, mathematical modeling, or prototype implementation,
> to replicate and compare results.
>
> Typically usage scenarios consist of::
>
> 1) Description of the application or traffic characterization:
> e.g. voice, video, file transfer, email, etc.
> 2) Network topology: number, type, location, coverage of access
> networks (802.11, 802.16, cellular, etc.), location of mobile
> node or multi-interface terminal (distance from access network).
> 3) Mobility or handover model : description of a path from one
> access network to the other.
> 4) Meta usage models eg. residential, office, airport, train.,
> that would associate a set of parameters to the above three
> elements.
> 5) Performance measures
> 6) whatever else you think may be needed
>
> If you're interested in contributing to this effort please send
> your thoughts to the reflector.
>
> Reijo Salminen has graciously agreed to consolidate the ideas
> and input received and fold that into a section on
> usage scenarios in the evaluation guidelines document.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> nada
>
> --
> Nada Golmie, Ph.D.
> Manager, High Speed Network Technologies Group
> National Institute of Standards and Technology
> 100 Bureau Dr. Stop 8920
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899
> Email: nada@nist.gov
> Phone: (301) 975-4190
> Fax: (301) 590-0932
> Web: http://w3.antd.nist.gov
>
--
/<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<++>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\
| Benjamin Koh Tien-Ming |
| R & D Engineer |
| Panasonic Singapore Laboratories Pte Ltd |
| Tel: (65)6550 5481 Fax: (65)6550 5459 |
| E-mail: benjamin@psl.com.sg |
\>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<</