RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2

["Dave James \(OAK Global\)" <djames@oak-global.com>]

John, Mike:
I agree 101% with these points (Mike's and John's). There was indeed
reflector discussion on this before.  

Mike's second para. and John's second sentence say it all - as I also stated
some while ago when this whole cul-de-sac area was first touted.  I am quite
closely involved in bus. dev. and related activities for various
international markets where 802.20 systems could have use, and this whole HO
issue for dissimilar technologies is clearly NOT IMHO an area where the
rewards-to-risk & cost ratio make ANY sense whatsoever. 

I might feel a bit different when I can experience decent HO between
SAME-system cellular mobile systems for VOICE in most countries ! !   And as
for the like situation for data today around the world - forget it...    As
Mike states, dissimilar systems' voice HO today is a potential technological
hurdle which would just add up to yet more complexity and expense that does
not itself make sense, so why add further to the muddle with 802.20 ?  

What does make perfect sense is 802.20 / 802.11 HO - but we all know that.
Thus WAN and LAN to give portable IP BWA ubiquitously.  OEMs can package
terminals (TSs) with different system technology mixes integrated, but that
is quite different from mandating HO capability for permutations that are
perhaps technologically feasible as tours-de-force but make no sense at all
economically and have no great appeal at the user level. 

Best regards, 
Dave J

OAK Global BV   

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]
Sent: 28 October 2003 00:01
To: Michael Youssefmir; James Tomcik
Cc: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail); Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; Landon, Jim
[GMG]; Machamer, Doug L [GMG]; Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]; Rausch, Walter F
[GMG]
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2



I agree with Michael's comments. 

HO's between dissimilar technologies is best handled above layer 3.

Jim,

What was the outcome from the discussions on this topic a few months back? 


John J. Humbert
6220 Sprint Parkway
Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
PCS (816) 210-9611

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Youssefmir
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 11:15 PM
To: James Tomcik
Cc: 'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'; Michael Youssefmir
Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2


Jim,

I strongly disagree with your line of reasoning below. 
The kind of interoperability you are suggesting would obviously be an 
enormous complication and I think we would need solid reasons for making

such a course change. 802.20 is NOT targeted as an extension 
to any of the systems you mention below and so handoff to them is not 
relevant to our current goals. If it were any other 
way I think the PAR would have explicitly said so. 

Also, I think that 802.20 can stand alone as a successful network without
the interoperability you mention below. If classical voice 
networks are anything to go by, I would say the market has spoken loud and
clear on the need for such interoperability. For example, I know of 
no systems that support handoff between GSM and CDMA.  Also I very much 
doubt we will be seeing the equivalent for 2.5G any time in the near 
future. 

Finally, I know that the current requirements document says that handoff to
various 3G technologies was deleted for lack of contribution. However, I'd
like to point out that this issue was discussed prior to our July meeting
and an explicit decision was made to remove this section because it has
little relevance to our current objectives. Again I will let the John
Humbert make the call. 

See for example the following email from Dave McGinniss as we were preparing
for the July meeting:

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 05:15:13PM -0500, Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG] wrote:
> I do not believe that any of the following things belong in the 
> requirements document.
>
>
>
> 1                     Handoff's to other technologies
>

Mike


On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:25:40PM -0700, James Tomcik wrote:
> 
> 
> Attached is some text for the requirements document on handoff (802.20
to 
> other systems).  These sections were deleted because there was no
> contributed requirement in this area.
> 
> Rationale:
> To support 3G service continuity and interworking with other deployed
> systems, handoff support is essential to an efficiently operating
802.20 
> system.  Since many emerging services are IP-based handoff support is
> advocated for these.  Because of the high-speed aspects of the 802.20
air 
> interface, and the latencies involved with network level handoff,
> mechanisms incorporated below the network layer are essential to
service 
> continuity.  For example, several handoffs per minute between a 3G
system 
> and an 802.20 system may be required.
> 
> Proposed to include the following:
> 
> 4.4.x 3G Interworking and Handoff
> 
> The Air Interface shall include handoff support with 3G systems below
the 
> IP layer.  Handoff mechanisms defined shall insure the uninterrupted
flow 
> of data to and from the Mobile Station at rates up to 2 handoffs per
> minute. 802.20 Mobile Stations  and Base Stations shall support at
minimum:
> 	a.  Handoff with cdma2000 1x systems
> 	b.  Handoff with WCDMA systems
> 	c.  Handoff with cdma 1xEV-DO (rev "0" and rev A) systems
> 	d.  Handoff with GSM/GPRS Systems
> 	e.  Handoff with EDGE Systems
> 
> 
> 
> ==========================================================
> 
> -=================================
>
........................................................................
..........
> 
> 		James D. Tomcik
> 		QUALCOMM, Incorporated
> 		(858) 658-3231 (Voice)
> 		(619) 890-9537 (Cellular)
> 		From:  San Diego, CA
> 		PGP: 5D0F 93A6 E99D 39D8 B024  0A9B 6361 ACE9 202C C780
>
........................................................................
..........