Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control duri

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

Dear Wei-Chieh and all

Thank you for your comment.

I agree that we don't need to assign a priority factor per M2M service. But, the number of priority levels should be decided based on the number of supported QoS type, M2M service type, access type, etc. If priority factors and related parameters are defined as system parameters, then the number of priority factors and values for the related paramters are decided during the develpment of system profile and it's not easy to change the number.

You said some fields and related parameters of the lookup table can be reserved for future usage. But, the system profile has to be changed to use the reserved fields or change any values of the related parameters.

On the contrary, if the priority factors and related parameters are broadcast using SCD message, then they can be easily changed to support new M2M service with differentiated QoS requirement and to support efficient use of limited ranging resource.

BR,

Jaesun Cha

Senior Engineer

Wireless Access Technology Research Team

Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966

-----------------------------------------------------

-----원본 메시지-----
From: "Wei-Chieh Huang" <aj@ITRI.ORG.TW>
From Date: 2011-02-16 오후 3:11:48
To: "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Jaesun and all

Thanks for your comment.

In my opinion, to broadcast “lookup table information” periodically increases the system overhead hugely.

Thus, to add a pre-defined lookup table in the standard is more practical.

In addition, although there should be many M2M applications in future, we may not need to define so many priority levels.

Different M2M applications may be categorized into the same priority.

Hence, I think that 8, or at most 16, priory levels are sufficient.

We can define some priority factors and related parameters according to application at present.

And moreover, some fields of this lookup table can be reserved for future usage.

BR,

Wei-Chieh Huang

From: 차재선 [mailto:jscha@etri.re.kr]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:35 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Wei-Chien, Lei and all

To my understanding, Wei-Chien wants to define a lookup table as a system parameter in the standard. is it correct? Any system paramter should be clearly defined, which means that number of priority factors should be fixed. But, if a lookup table is transmitted using a broadcast mesage, then the number of priority factors can be flexibly managed.

'the worst case' is related with the number of priority factors. The number of priority factors is related with the number of QoS type or M2M service and access type supported in 16p. If a priority lookup table is defined as a system parameter, then the number of priority factors should be determined considering all potential QoS type, M2M service and access type.

I have another comment to Lei.

Lei suggested to reuse access class in 16m for priority access control. But, to my understanding, access class is defined for BR ranging and access index is assigned per service flow. But, in case of intial network entry or network entry, there is no active service flow. So, I'm not sure how we can map access class to a M2M device or M2M device group.

BR,

Jaesun Cha

Senior Engineer

Wireless Access Technology Research Team

Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966

-----------------------------------------------------

-----원본 메시지-----
From: "lei zhou" <l.zhou@samsung.com>
From Date: 2011-02-16 오후 12:52:46
To: "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Jaesun and all

I believe it's more flexible to include ranging information in SCD.

However, it also increases overhead. In addition, is “more flexible” necessary?

I think that a simple pre-defined table indicating ranging information shall be sufficient.

Therefore, only the priority factor needs to be assigned before the devices entering idle mode.

Best regards,

Wei-Chieh Huang and Ping-Heng Kuo

From: 차재선 [mailto:jscha@etri.re.kr]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:04 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Lei and all

Thank you for your response.

Yes, there are two trigger modes for network reentry. So, I would like to hear other member's opinion on the use of single mechanism for both cases.

If authors of contributions (C0008, C0009, C0017, C0026) give us feedbacks on the high-level operation, then we can try to provide the consolidated contribution.

Regarding ranging information, Yes, you are right. Ranging information is carried by S-SFH SP3. But, there are only 3 types of ranging information (initial, HO, BR). We can further divide ranging information only for M2M devices in SCD. Ranging information in SCD may be subset of ranging information for human devices or may be seperated from ranging information for human devices. In my opinion, it's more flexible to include ranging information in SCD.

BR,

Jaesun Cha

Senior Engineer

Wireless Access Technology Research Team

Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966

-----------------------------------------------------

From: lei zhou [mailto:l.zhou@samsung.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:33 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Jaesun and all:

Thank you for Jaesun's initializing discussion on network reentry.

I am Lei from Samsung.

I have the similar view on network reentry trigger with Jaesun. There are two trigger modes for network reentry inculding network and terminals (MS and Group).For network reentry triggered M2M group,we need uniform some attributes including Group ID,member ID, group delagate and group member of M2M group.

Btw,16m S-SFH SP3 has carriered ranging information. Any comments are welcome.

Lei

------- Original Message -------

Sender : 차재선<jscha@etri.re.kr>

Date : 二月 14, 2011 19:15 (GMT+09:00)

Title : [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear all

I'm Jaesun Cha from ETRI.

I have uploaded a new contribution regarding access control in the upload server (C802.16p-rg-11/0035). So, I sent this e-mail to inform you of the new contribution and to discuss access control related contributions including my contribution.

According to Contribution #33r2, there are 5 contributions regarding access control (including my contribution). Most of them propose an assignment of additional access control information but assignment method and detailed information are different from one another.

So, I would like to suggest to discuss a high-level piture on access control method before going into detailed access control information. For example, How does an ABS indicate any additional information for ranging process? When does an ABS assign an additional parameter for ranging process?

Once an aggrement on this high-level operation is made, we can go further to discuss any detailed access control information.

Here is my opinion on access control.

I agree that access congestion may happen after group paging. But, although there is no paging, access control may happen. If an AMS has UL data to be transmitted during idle mode, it will perform network reentry by transmitting a ranging code. In smart metering use case, many devices may have same report period, which means that many smart metering devices will perform ranging process at the same time.

So, I think we have to provide the same access control mechanism for network reentry triggered by a network as well as by an AMS.

For doing that, I proposes to transmit system information regarding access control for M2M devices through SCD message and to assign an index to each M2M device during idle mode entry procedure. The assigned index indicates access control information (ranging information) to be used during future network reentry. The same index may be assigned to different paging group or different index may be assigned to different devices which belonging to the same M2M group. Of course, this index may be updated or overrided by a paging message.

Anyone who is interested in access control please share your opinion through this e-mail thread.

Any comments on my suggestion or my contribution are welcomed.

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Jaesun Cha

Senior Engineer

Wireless Access Technology Research Team

Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966

-----------------------------------------------------

-----원본 메시지-----
From: "Kiseon Ryu" <kiseon.ryu@LGE.COM>
From Date: 2011-02-14 오전 8:50:43
To: "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Summary of 1st PWR RG CC

Dear 16p members,

Thanks to all of you for joining the first PWR RG conference call and sharing much valuable opinions.

I’ve uploaded the meeting summary capturing Q&A discussion during the call (80216p-rg-11_0034.doc) to the upload server.

Here are some key issues and action items of today's call:

1. Idle Mode Operation

[IDLE#1] New Group Paging Concept (Including hierarchical paging): Need to clarify its gain?

[IDLE#2] Modified & Additional LU mechanism (Cell-/Timer-based): Is new definition necessary?

[IDLE#3] Longer Paging Cycle

Hyunjeong, Soojung, and Giwon presented their contribution. I would like to ask someone among you volunteering to lead the harmonization on each topic.

2. Network Reentry from Idle Mode

[NE#1] Definition of Waiting Time before UL ranging for network re-entry

a. Waiting time after receiving paging: Need to clarify its gain?

b. Different ranging opportunities for M2M group with priority: Increased congestions to low priority group?

[NE#2] Dedicated ranging code and/or ranging region for M2M (e.g., S-RNG): Impact to legacy MS and its overhead of dedicated region?

Jin, Chiwoo, Ping-Heng, Andreas, Yu-Chuan, Wei-Chieh presented their contribution. I would like to ask someone among you volunteering to lead the harmonization on each topic.

3. Device collaboration

[DC#1] on-/off-state frame control for DC support: Need to clarify the power saving gain from device collaboration?

Jinsoo presented the contribution. Jinsoo, could you initiate harmonization activities with other members?

If there is any other issue, please let us know.

* Notes:

1. For all members who are interested in the above 6 issues, please share your opinion.

2. The initiation of the e-mail discussion, please use the HEADER (e.g., [IDLE#1], [NE#2]...) in the e-mail title.

Regards,

Kiseon Ryu

PWR RG Chair

本信件可能包含工?院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，?請銷?此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Best Regards

Dr.Lei Zhou (周雷) ,Ph.D.

Senior Engineer,

Mobile WIMAX Evolution Standards,

Advanced Standard Research Group,

China SAMSUNG Telecom R&D Center,

12/F Zhongdian Fazhan Building, No.9,Xiaguang Li,

Chaoyang District Beijing,China 100125

TEL:(010)5925-3333 Ext.3112

FAX:(010)8468-1366

E-MAIL:l.zhou@samsung.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------