RE: Peretz's Action Item from last conf meeting
Comments on chapter 6.2.1
1. The changes in Uu interface will lead to compatibility problems. Uu is
the air interface in 3G. This has to be taken into account. Note that the
installed base of both UTRAN and 3G terminals is expected to experience
rapid growth in the near future.
In the figure the layer 2.5 signaling implies changes in the Uu interface.
2. Introducing IEEE 802 family PHYs+MACs into UTRAN can/will lead to
comprehensive re-engineering of the UTRAN products. The commercial UTRAN
products have been thoroughly optimized for the existing RABs (Radio Access
Bearers). Note also that 3GPP is working on the evolution of UTRAN and has a
technical report describing the current situation there, see TR 25.897
'Feasibility study on the evolution of UTRAN architecture'. These facts have
to be taken into account. The comment regarding installed base is also valid
here, which is an important point for both the vendors and for the
operators.
In order to enable successful interworking between IEEE 802 and 3G systems,
a very active liaisoning is a needed. Also this chapter has to be written
very carefully for enabling such an activity to take place.
I can explain the above in more detail in Berlin, if needed.
BR, Reijo Salminen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peretz Feder
Sent: 10. syyskuuta 2004 9:08
To: 802.21 list
Subject: Peretz's Action Item from last conf meeting
3.3 QoS:
The standard shall provide a means for obtaining QoS information of each
network
involved in the handover process. There shall also be means to translate QoS
attributes of the source system into normalized link-layer QoS levels of the
target system. In other words, a normalized translation attempting to match
the
different QoS attributes of the disparate media access technologies shall be
performed so that the migrating session can sustain its QoS attributes
during
and after the handover. As an example, matching will be required if users on
a
802.11e WLAN system handover sessions with 8 priority levels to a WiMax
system
supporting 4 priority levels. The standard shall provide the means for
obtaining the admission control decision so that proper matching can be
made.
During handovers, if the target network is unable to support the QoS levels
of
the serving network, the handover policy may not preclude the degradation of
the
QoS level of the session in the new network for the sake of maintaining a
session continuity.
Section 6.1: attached drawing change per Michael W. comments
Section 6.2.21 third paragraph
Eric is this more acceptable? feel free to amend further before the
face-to-face
meeting which I will miss.
In UTRAN, Service Access Points (SAP) are used for communication among all
the
sublayers. Layer 2.5 triggers may already be supported in the PHY layer
(e.g.
RSSI threshold crossing) and can be easily obtained through a newly defined
SAPs
or APIs. Other triggers or hints may be also supported across the UTRAN MAC,
RLP
and RRC layers and can also be provided through new or existing SAPs.
Alternatively a new 2.5 layer could be introduced below the UTRAN network
interface and exchange information through new SAPs with all the sublayers.
This
concept is captured below. This requirement document is not attempting to
redefine the 3GPP architecture but rather proposes new SAPs that in effect
provide the required layer 2.5 functionality while enabling MIH across
heterogeneous networks.
Peretz Feder