802 Handoff ECSG EC Opening Plenary Report

November. 2003

David Johnston, IntelSlide 1

doc.: 802_Handoff_EC_Opening_Plenary_Report

Submission

802 Handoff ECSGEC Opening Plenary Report

David Johnston

[email protected]

[email protected]

November. 2003



Submission

Officers• Chair

– David Johnston (Intel)

• Recording Secretary– Michael G. Williams (Nokia)

• Vice Chair– Ajay Rajkumar (Lucent) was elected

unanimously as vice chair

November. 2003



Submission

Activities last session• Technical Work

– Cellular-wlan coupling models– 802.16e alignment

• Reconsidered Placement wrt 802.1af and 802.21– Produced and agreed position statements

• Developed PAR and 5C that had universal support in the group

• Agreed a Title– Media Independent Handover

November. 2003



Submission

Title• Media Independent Handover

– Changed handoff to handover to align with other handover activities in 802

– Media Independent• Addressed the basic differentiating feature of the

standard

• Does not address the general mobility optimizations the standard may address. Too much detail in the title.

November. 2003



Submission

Officer Volunteers• Volunteers with employer support are

available to take on officer positions – Existing officers all are willing to take on roles

• David Johnston (chair)

• Michael Williams (Editor)

• Ajay Rajkumar (Vice chair/Secretary)

November. 2003



Submission

Placement• The group (11,0,0) unanimously re-

approved recommending placing the work as a new working group

November. 2003



Submission

Placement Position Statements

• EC Requested we address 802.1 option• We went through the issues, asked the same

question, got the same answer• To move the debate on, we developed

position statements that encapsulated the motivations of all individuals in the group for preferring WG status

• All agreed their opinions were represented• None disagreed with any of the statements

November. 2003



Submission

PPS #1 Type Of Standard

• 802.1 has concentrated on 802 level architectural standards, albeit not exclusively.– There appears to be a default mapping between

802 handover and 802.1 based on the media access independent nature of the 802 handover proposal.

November. 2003



Submission

PPS #2 Wired and Wireless Focus

• 802.1 emphasized wired technology (E.G. 802.1X is a wired-focused standard).

• The handover standard will probably be used most commonly by wireless users, however it must necessarily address both the wired and wireless cases simultaneously.

• As a separate WG we are in a position to attract people with the skill to address both wired and wireless domains. 802.1 has a large majority of people with a wire oriented skill set.

November. 2003



Submission

PPS #3 Liasons

• We believe a WG focused on handover issues as we currently understand them needs to have a focused and vigorous liaison process with other important standardization bodies. E.G. The IETF, 3GPP and 3GPP2.

• Liaison for this work need to be focused on specific IETF efforts and cellular standards that wouldn’t normally interface with the wired focused standards groups in IEEE.

November. 2003



Submission

PPS #4 Avoiding Imposition on 802.1

• We anticipate putting a significant amount of effort into working and communicating technical issues with other standards bodies both external and internal to the IEEE, particularly wireless groups.

• Since these interactions should be made at a WG level, this would imply a substantial increment to the workload in 802.1 while 802.1 is heavily occupied with LinkSec and HiLi.

November. 2003



Submission

PPS #5 Interworking with IEEE Groups

• We expect in interim and ad hoc sessions we would be seeking to co-locate with other wireless groups in order to coordinate technically. E.G. 802.11, 802.16, 802.20.

• The organizational benefits from 802.1’s meeting organization efforts are not felt by the handover group. We would be benefiting equally from the meeting organization efforts of other groups.

• Therefore one of the principle reasons for locating disjoint work within a WG (I.E. organizational effort sharing) does not apply.

November. 2003



Submission

PPS #6 EC Representation

• A number of organizations attach high importance to these interworking efforts within the IEEE.

• It is felt that to achieve appropriate representation, EC representation is necessary to defend the interests of the group.

November. 2003



Submission

PAR and 5 Criteria

• Group voted unanimously (22,0,0) to approve a PAR and 5 Criteria for forwarding to the EC for review and approval

November. 2003



Submission

Scope Issues• Needed to address

– The aspects of handover supported– Network detection and selection– All coupling models– Relationship to existing L2 handover mechanisms– Compatibility with 802 architectural model

• Needed to Prevent– Definition of security

• Needed to Allow– Necessary interaction with other 802 security mechanisms

• Needed to leave open– Coupling to backhaul services (other forums still in flux)– Precise mechanisms used (feasible mechanisms identified, but

used only as feasibility proof, not agreement on the standard)

November. 2003



Submission

Purpose

• Focused on improving user experience of mobile devices

Documents

802 Handoff ECSG EC Opening Plenary Report