December 2004
21-04-0201-00-0000
IEEE P802
Media Independent Handover Services
Teleconference Meeting Minutes of the IEEE P802.21 Working Group
Chair: Ajay Rajkumar
Vice Chair: Michael Glenn Williams
Secretary: Xiaoyu Liu
Editor: Vivek Gupta
Date: Tuesday, Dec 7th, 2004, 10:00-11:30AM EST
1.
Meeting Opening by Nada Golmie
1.1.
Roll Call
1.2.
Intend to discuss evaluation guidelines document and Alan’s
proposal for scope matrix and call flow template.
2.
Alan Carlton's Proposal for Scope Matrix & Call Flow
Template
2.1.
Refer to Alan's email on Dec. 5 for the slides
2.2.
Comments and Discussions
2.2.1.
Alan presented the slides attached in the email.
2.2.2.
Q: Would the call flow template be similar to that of Info Service
as well? A: Yes. You can still use that diagram.
2.2.3.
Q: Do we need this sequence for every trigger? A: Do not have
to do for every trigger, but need to visualize the triggers and
justify the inclusion of the triggers.
Minutes
page 1
Xiaoyu Liu, SAMSUNG
December 2004
21-04-0201-00-0000
2.2.4.
Q: Do we need a call flow per handover scenario which would
capture several triggers? A: Yes, at least a call flow for the
scenarios in the matrix.
2.2.5.
Q: Call flow is based on scenarios? A: Yes.
2.2.6.
Reijo: The minimum is the successful cases. Alan: Failure
scenarios could be included as well.
2.2.7.
Cheng: We would have many sub-scenarios, e.g. network
initiated, station initiated, network decided, station decided, or
different combinations. How many flow charts should we
provide? Alan: It is up to the proposer. Depend on how the
proposer feels better to illustrate his proposal.
2.2.8.
Cheng: Shall we have a basic set of scenarios so that it is clear
that how many flow charts should be provided? Alan: Yes, we
can. Nada: It is flexible to break the scenarios into network
initiated, station initiated, etc. Then we can decide how many
flow charts we need. Alan: We can have one for network
initiated, one for mobile initiated, or both.
2.2.9.
Cheng: Could the basic set of scenarios be included in the
criteria document? Do we need to define those scenarios?
Nada: Yes, that makes sense. Alan: The idea is to adopt a
common way of streaming our proposals. Achieving a
consensus is helpful.
2.2.10. Q: Slide 2, X and Y are .11 and .16? A: Yes, .11, .16 or even
.15. That’s just for simplicity of presentation. The minimum set is
in the technical requirement document.
2.2.11. Summary by Nada: Let people comment on and think about the
matrix proposal for a few days. Alan takes the comments and
revises it, maybe defining a minimum set to see how many call
flow charts we need, and putting texts in the evaluation
guidelines document. This would be included as one section.
3.
Discussion on Evaluation Guidelines Document
3.1.
Checklist
3.1.1.
Comment: We need the checklist as well. Response: That’s also
the feeling in last discussion.
3.1.2.
No more discussion on Checklist. No objection.
Minutes
page 2
Xiaoyu Liu, SAMSUNG
December 2004
3.1.3.
3.2.
3.3.
21-04-0201-00-0000
Summary by Nada: Unanimous consensus on Checklist. Put
the Checklist in document 0152 as part of the evaluation
guidelines document.
Reference Architecture
3.2.1.
Comment: It has already been covered by call flow sequence.
We do not need it. It would be redundant.
3.2.2.
Nada: How many are in favor of keeping the reference model as
one section in evaluation guideline document? (Against: 3;
Vivek, Cheng, and Reijo)
3.2.3.
Comment: Reference model and reference architecture are
pretty close. We already do this in the checklist.
3.2.4.
Summary by Nada: Merge this part into Checklist.
3.2.5.
Vivek volunteered to extend the checklist.
Usage Model / Scenarios
3.3.1.
Comment: Usage model and scenarios help us to make sure the
proposals really work in implementation. It is really complex and
systematic work. Response: As we discussed in last
teleconference, there is some difficulty in defining the usage
models. Time frame is another issue.
3.3.2.
Q: Usage model means use cases? A: It would be some kind of
simulations, analysis, experiment, implementation or some other
mechanisms to show the proposal really works.
3.3.3.
Comment: We have to have some verification, but not
necessarily to do this for down-selection.
3.3.4.
Comment: We could do this work after the proposals are
harmonized and we have the solution. We do not need to do it
now. The market could decide which use case is more
compelling. The usage model definitions are ambiguous at this
point.
3.3.5.
Comment: We do not need to have extremely detailed
verification instructions at this point. But we can list the main
elements that need to be verified. Some forms of usage
definitions are necessary, but not too detailed. Just keep a place
holder.
3.3.6.
Nada: Three options: 1. Do we want to do performance analysis
for down-selection now? (Answer: NO.) 2. Should we do
performance analysis later on after harmonization? (Answer:
YES.) 3. Do we want to include a place holder for usage
models?
Minutes
page 3
Xiaoyu Liu, SAMSUNG
December 2004
21-04-0201-00-0000
3.3.7.
Reijo volunteered to add some descriptions regarding usage
models.
3.3.8.
Summary by Nada: Do not require performance analysis,
modeling and simulation results for proposal down-selection.
Keep a place holder for usage model and scenarios, and call for
contributions in the mailing list.
4.
Conclusions
4.1.
Two separate documents: Evaluation Guidelines Document;
Down-Selection Document
4.2.
Three sections in Evaluation Guidelines Document: Matrix; Call
Flow; Checklist
5.
Action Items
5.1.1.
ACTION: Alan to update the matrix template and flow charts
before the next teleconference.
5.1.2.
ACTION: Vivek to extend the checklist and add more
descriptions before the next teleconference.
5.1.3.
ACTION: Reijo to work on the usage models before the next
teleconference.
5.1.4.
ACTION: Nada to send an email to the reflector to call for
contributions of usage models
5.1.5.
Skip the teleconference on Dec.14 and wait until Jan.
5.1.6.
Next teleconference scheduled on Wednesday, Jan. 5th, 2005,
10:00AM-12:00AM US EST. Put the three working sections all
together.
5.1.7.
Ajay would send a reminder to the reflector that detailed
proposal should be sent to Chair one week before Jan meeting,
i.e. midnight on Jan 9th, 2005.
6.
Teleconference Adjourned
7.
Attendees
(More may have attended. Please send updates to Chair)
Ajay Rajkumar
Minutes
page 4
Xiaoyu Liu, SAMSUNG
December 2004
21-04-0201-00-0000
Alan Carlton
Cheng Hong
Michael Williams
Nada Golmie
Prasad Govindarajan
Reijo Salminen
Vivek Gupta
Xiaoyu Liu
Yoshihiro Ohba
Minutes
page 5
Xiaoyu Liu, SAMSUNG