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

Based on current discussion, we need clarify definition of priority access and then discuss about necessity of priority access.

As we know, emegency call should have higher priority than public service but in 16m there isn't any special procedure for that.

Because M2M applications are too many, priority of some applications should higher than that of public service, but maybe other not.

Anyway, I have initialzied to discuss about definition and necessity of priority access.

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

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

Dear Lei,

I have a quick question regarding to raging information. Do you prefer M2M devices and Human devices with different and identical ranging mechanism or not?

In our point of view, we prefer separating the mechanism between M2M devices and Human devices in case of user experience. We prefer human device has higher priority to reentry.

Best regards,

Zheng Yan-Xiu

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