Re: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff document

["Avi Freedman" <avif@hexagonltd.com>]

Itzik and HO-AH

I agree that the term Soft handover is not clear enough. It seems to me that in Vladimir's C80216e-03/01, it means a soft transition, that is with no break or failure of service, while hard HO requires a new NW entry. I think we should distinguish betwee the mobility management level and the data level.  I understand the term soft handoff in the data level, namely that the data is communicated between the MS and the network via more than one base station.  In that level there could be more than one serving BS.

 

Avi

 

 

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

From: Itzik Kitroser

To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:22 AM

Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff document

Dear Avi and all,

 

I agree with Avi.

 

I thought that "soft" and "hard" terms should be provided with relevant context in order to prevent

misinterpretation of the terms.

The items 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 were a way to insert the "soft" and "hard" HO as given by Vladimir Yanover in C80216e-03/01

without stating the explicitly "soft" and "hard" terms.

 

There was no explicit decision to exclude soft handoff, and I think that considering soft handoff is relevant and should be made,

by providing with it the relevant context.

 

Itzik Kitroser

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Avi Freedman
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:50 AM
To: stds-802-16-mobile@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16-mobile: Handoff document

Dear Handoff ad-hoccers

 

I have been looking at the document Itzik had complied.  I haven't seen any mentioning of the possibility of soft handoff.  Was there any decision to exclude it?  Soft handoff is not necessarily CDMA, you know, and it might provide an advantage.

 

Avi Freedman