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

RE: Ad hoc group on evaluation - Soliciting contributions to developing Usage Models/Scenarios




From: Reijo Salminen [mailto:reijo.salminen@seesta.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:59 AM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Subject: RE: Ad hoc group on evaluation - Soliciting contributions to developing Usage Models/Scenarios

 

Hi, Vivek

 

I agree that a more formal definition of this activity is needed, and I’m working on it. I’ll find out what has been used in other groups within IEEE, as well as in other SDO’s.

 

We have ‘seamless’ in the PAR, which is a metric, and what it means in numbers depends on what is being handed over. Stability is also a metric, even though it is not explicitly visible in the PAR, what I mean we should have a system that does not start to oscillate (perform cyclic handovers), behave in a consistent way and so on.

 

Based on my experience from the 5 cellular systems I’ve been involved, the handovers have always been the last ones that have come out from testing (due to different  ‘surprises’ that pop up in eg. System test phase when different system elements are put together, and since it is the most difficult feature in a cellular system), and I’m sure we will have the same situation also. But in our case if such a surprise ends up into the standard before it is been caught – then we would need to run and fast.

[Gupta, Vivek G]

There may be a difference between what you describe above and the work in 802.21. Seems like in this case a complete system level definition of handover including appropriate protocols etc. was specified. That is not the case with 802.21 where we are using existing protocols and mostly optimizing the handover process.

So to give some perspective, once we have a formal system level definition of test bed for our performance evaluation etc. it should be possible initially to do handovers in some form without use of 802.21, and then we could probably use the same system to do handovers using mechanisms specified in 802.21.

In my view, a comparison of metrics between the two cases would likely be a fair evaluation of mechanisms specified in 802.21.

 

Do you see the .21 specific media specific amendments as being initiated from the .21 proposals, or from the specific groups? If they originate from .21 we should first check that they will also work. Same thing with the cellular interworking functionalities.

[Gupta, Vivek G]

I would expect .21 folks to initiate this activity. The work would likely be carried out in media specific groups.

We may have more insight into this as we reach draft text.

 

BR, Reijo

 


From: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
Sent: 8. joulukuuta 2004 15:45
To: Reijo Salminen
Subject: RE: Ad hoc group on evaluation - Soliciting contributions to developing Usage Models/Scenarios

 


From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Reijo Salminen
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 11:44 PM
To: Gupta, Vivek G; 'Nada Golmie'; stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Ad hoc group on evaluation - Soliciting contributions to developing Usage Models/Scenarios

 

The intention is to start the development of usage models/scenarios in parallel with the evaluation and down selection. It is going to be a tough job to fulfill, but it is a mandatory task in the development of the 802.21 standard. As in any complex system activity – what the development of 802.21 also is, the planning of verification activities must started at an early stage, both to help in understanding the complexity of the problem, to ensure good quality of the outcome, and to reduce overall lead time.

[Gupta, Vivek G]

You bring an interesting point about “verification of standard”.

What does this really mean and how do other groups in IEEE typically handle this?

So far we have not specified any performance specific or even otherwise any “numbers/metrics” etc. that 802.21 needs to meet, both as part of the PAR

and also the requirements document. So we may need a more formal definition of this verification process to get a better understanding of expectations.

Also will it be feasible to do this verification before the 802.21 specific media specific amendments have been done?

 

 

Would it help if it was a separate document instead of a chapter in the evaluation document?

[Gupta, Vivek G]

That’s fine as long as this is not linked to evaluation guidelines/criteria.

I would just like to see the evaluation guideline document development process close in a timely manner!

 

Best Regards

-Vivek

 

 


From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Nada Golmie
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 2:52 PM
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.

[Gupta, Vivek G]

The evaluation guidelines document should basically help with evaluations and down selection.

If the above information is NOT going to help with evaluation and down selection, then it should NOT be included in evaluation guideline document.