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

Re: [STDS-802-16] [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] HO Ad-Hoc Consen sus document, reply comments

Title: Message
Phil, Prakash,
 
For the two issues I raised in my reply comments, I think we should be able to resolve them over emails. My understanding was since there weren't enough time to go through the consensus contributions during the last HO adhoc call as was originally planned in the agenda, any remaining issues should be raised in the reply comments.
 
Regarding my comments on contribution 146, I would like to see the service level support and available resource information added to the MOB-NBR-ADV, as proposed in contribution 224. We have discussed this during the last HO adhoc call and identified several options as Prakash has summarized in the HO adhoc call minutes. I am in favour of putting the information into a new TLV  type so that it can be optional. Also, to allow the option of only broadcasting service level support, we can set the 4-bit resource available field to '1111' as was suggested during the call.
 
Regarding my comments on contribution 144, I would like to get some clarification on whether HO Indication is required for non-contention based ranging since the target BS must have known that the MSS is performing handover, from the fact that the target BS sends a Fast_UL_ranging_IE to allocate the UL resource.
 
Thanks.
 
Mo-Han 
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 8:48 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] HO Ad-Hoc Consensus document, reply comments

I am 100% certain that I can resolve these issues/questions to Vladimir and Mo-Han's satisfaction, but these are consensus contributions and I need approval of the group to do so.  There is not going to be any time for me to negotiate acceptable changes, make them, post them for review, revise, and re-submit.
 
This is better handled via email, rather than by teleconference, to give me an opportunity to expound upon the rationale of the group for various decisions.
 
Thanks,
Phil
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] HO Ad-Hoc Consensus document, reply comments

Given that these contributions have been out there for a while, a reject reply comment could have been avoided. An option is to have a short telecon tomorrow morning to see if these issues can be addressed.
 
Vladimir, Phil, Mo-Han, others? - can we resolve over email or should we try to have a call tomorrow?
-Prakash
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Barber
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:37 PM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Handoff] HO Ad-Hoc Consensus document, reply comments

I received the following reply comments requesting/requiring changes to the listed HO Ad-Hoc Consensus documents and am seeking input on applying changes, if any, to the contributions.  These are Consensus contributions and I am reluctant to unilaterally make changes to the documents without circulating and receiving comments.
Document: C80216-04_146
Reply Comment: from Vladimir Yanover, Accepted-Modified, Technical Binding
 
Accept the contribution with the following changes:
1.  Instead of "Length - Length of message information within the iteration of N_NEIGHBOR in bytes" [which is not a regular format element in 802.16] create a TLV that contains all needed fields [which are PHY dependent]
2. In "HO Process Optimization" section list network entry steps rather than related messages
3. State [in Remedy part] that "Configuration Change Count" [of MOB-NBR-ADV] covers also DCD/UCD parameters
4. Not clear why "DL Physical Frequency" [of BS] is excluded. Is it a part of TLV Encoded Neighbor information?
5. Delete "TLV specific" [length of TLV Encoded Neighbor information] which expalins nothing. "Variable" is enough. BTW  it appears in many places in the standard.
 
Document: C80216-04_146
Reply Comment: from Mo-Han Fong, Accepted-Modifed, Technical Binding
 
Add the information on service level supported and available resource of the neighbor BS (refer to contribution C80216e-04_224).
 
Document: C80216-04_144
Reply Comment: from Vladimir Yanover, Rejected, Technical Binding
 
1. The contribution suggests non-contention based MSS Initial Ranging. For that there must be a mechanism to allocate UNICAST UL transmission opportunity for an MSS not having yet Basic CID [e.g. using 48-bits MAC address]. Currently 802.16 lacks such mechanism, so Remedy #1 cannot be implemented.
 
2. [Remedies #2-4] HMAC is a function of AK, so success in processing of HMAC means that both sides probably use the same AK. But it does not mean automatically that TEK state machines at both sides are synchronized. This issue must be investigated more thoroughly and probably more information must be exchanged to ensure complete PKM synchronization between MSS and target BS
 
3. [Remedy #5] There is no relation between establishment of IP connectivity [it is for management purpopses only!] and transfer of network data from old BS to new BS and further to the MSS
 
4. [Remedy #6,7] Language related to network entry steps [rather than to specific messages] should be used.
 
5. For capabilities exchange: I didn't find any analysis of situation when capabilities received over backbone do not fit those of the MSS [e.g. because of transmission error or software problem].
 
Document: C80216-04_144
Reply Comment: from Mo-Han Fong, Accepted-Modifed, Technical Binding
 
HO Indication may not be required for non-contention based ranging because the target BS must have known that the MSS is performing handover, from the fact that the target BS sends a Fast_UL_ranging_IE to allocate the UL resource.
 
I am sincerely dissappointed to be receiving Technical Binding comments on a Consensus contribution that was widely distributed and available for comment previously, with solicitation and no additional comments for at least two weeks.
 
Thanks,
Phil