Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Minutes from 6/17 telecon
Phil,
I'm in Chicago, and the server seems to be accessible. A little slow,
but I think that's because of the large number of files.
Roger
At 20:11 -0500 04/06/18, Phillip Barber wrote:
>Contribution is done, but upload is inaccessible. Help?
>
>Thanks,
>Phil
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>Phillip Barber
>To:
><mailto:STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org>STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
>Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 5:08 PM
>Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Minutes from 6/17 telecon
>
>Almost finished with my 'flags' contribution. Will get it out
>today. It includes support for HMAC Tuple in RNG-REQ.
>
>Thanks,
>Phil.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:prakash.iyer@INTEL.COM>Iyer, Prakash
>To:
><mailto:STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org>STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
>Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:07 PM
>Subject: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] Minutes from 6/17 telecon
>
>Minutes from the conf call:
>
>1. Discussion on harmonized contribution C802.16e-04_87r2 (please
>review this in advance of the call)
>
>- We got general agreement on the following:
>
>- Makes sense to include HMAC tuple in RNG-REQ (to be confirmed
>with security adhoc group)
>
>- Use current SBC profile - if MSS has information it should prefer
>that to a minimum/ default profile
>
>- Indicating flags in RNG-REQ/RSP as proposed by Phil may be a good
>idea. BSHO-REQ should also indicate levels.
>
>Main issues to resolve:
>
>- UL concatenation of messages Samsung concern - UL large packet
>size at low coding rates is inefficient. Runcom claims that this is
>more efficient for lower levels.
>
>- Define discrete levels for HO context transfers / sharing versus
>arbitrary levels based on flags. or not.
>
>2. Closure on definitions of Base station ID, Operator ID, Sector ID
>and Frequency Assignment (FA) ID - including relationship, hierarchy
>etc.
>
>- 2 new 8-bit fields to be added to DCD-Map and NBR-ADV to represent
>Sector ID and Channel Number (preferred over FA ID)
>
>- Also we decided to make Sector ID = Preamble Index
>
>Drafting team will ensure backward compatibility is preserved
>
>3. Closure on harmonization of 105_Inter-sector HO and 04/58
>
>- Jung-won will work on an update in time for the drafting section.
>He will send out a short email summarizing how these contribs will
>be harmonized.
>
>3. SHO harmonization with fast switching BS HO and hybrid approach
> - Samsung was supposed to upload a contribution but have'nt seen that yet
> - No harmonized contribution yet (SHO / fast switching BS HO / hybrid)
>
>- Mary and Mo-Han believe it possible to develop a common MAC
>contribution supporting both FBSS and SHO. Both solutions are being
>pursued for harmonization and both solutions will be optional. As
>part of the harmonization, the group will look into support for
>dynamic selection between FBSS and SHO (in deployments where both
>are supported in a deployment) - perhaps the anchor BS will make
>such decisions.
>
>The group has not had time to review the 2 PHY contributions from
>Nortel and Samsung. Also a harmonized MAC contribution requires more
>work; email discussions will continue to make progress prior to the
>6/25 deadline. Meanwhile, during the drafting session, the group
>will make an attempt to write up non PHY specific text and circulate
>to the group for feedback.
>
>4. Any specific recommendations for changes / additions to DCD map
>to optimize / support HO
>
>Please email specific suggestions to Prakash so the drafting team
>can track and ensure they get addressed.
>
>5. Scanning optimizations. Contributions to discuss:
>- Simplified scanning procedure
>
>There was a lot of debate on what does the BW parameter conveys?
>Contribution needs further discussion to be driven by Mo-Han.
>
>Kamran will send out a summary of the proposal he discussed during the call.
>
>Prakash will pull out relevant text from .11k for group review.
>
>Samsung also suggested that the group review contribution 57 in this context.
>
>- A method of scanning neighbor BSs periodically-rev 2
>
>This contribution needs more review and discussion on the mailing
>list before we can declare consensus or reject.
>
>- Method to reduce number of scanning
>
> There was a comment that the contribution does not address multiple
>frequency assignment. More discussion to follow on the mailing list.
>
>6. Decision on ARID vs. prefix/subnet ID for optimizing IP
>connection establishment (use Ronny Kim's contribution 90r2 as
>basis)
>
>Chunjae Song - Samsung to upload new contribution; will attempt to
>converge over the mailing list. SKT, LG and Samsung.
>
>Itzik supports 68r2 (Phil might agree with that as well).
>
>Branislav has since raised a concern that the contribution does not
>adequately address all scenarios. Request to provide some text to
>help drive discussion.
>
>7. Idle mode related contributions:
>04/66r1 - Location management for supporting Idle mode
>04/108
>04/28r1
>04/105 - Complementing Idle Mode handover operations
>
>Discussions to continue on the reflector.
>
>8 . Other contributions:
>- Overhead reduction for initial ranging
>- Ping pong criteria (do we have proposed text?) 04/55r3
>- MSS release after completing initial network entry
>- 04/48
>- 04/57
>- 04/76r2
>- 04/61
>- 04/65
>- 04/50r1
>- 04/51r1
>
>We ran out of time. More email discussions needed.
>
>* Any contributions addressing different FFT size between sectors
>(so far we have none)
>
>Only applicable for inter-operator HO scenarios, so this will be
>dropped for now.
>
>* Any contributions related to informative text additions
>
>None.
>
>* Any contributions related to clarifications / changes to SDLs
>
>None.