|
Hi
Vikrant,
Yes.
That information would be helpful at a later stage, and for the implementation
eval. However, as agreed in the teleconf that the simulation/performance measure
would not be done at this stage for the eval criteria. The main point is that we
could not agree on a set of paramemters/measures without some understanding of
the basics first. Look at other groups' experience, those eval criteria with
simulation parameter details usually took a long time to develop, some even over
a year. That is why we are trying to avoid it being done at this stage. Or, has
the group changed the view on this?
cheers
Cheng
Hong
Hi,
I think its a
valid point. However documenting basic applicability statements for key meta
usage models, performance measures etc. would not hurt. They could give
experimenters a basic foundation on which to base their experiments and impose
some uniformity in the way experiments are run and results reported. Probably
would make the task of evaluation a bit simpler.
_________________________________
Regards,
Vikrant.
Hi
Nada and all,
I
thought the discussion was concluded that we need some basic set of
scenarios to help us deciding what/how many call flows diagrams to
provide.
However, it seems that the usage scenarios mentioned in the
below e-mail are some specific scenarios for simulation/implementation
with some specific details, e.g. application, traffic characteristic,
performance measures. I think that is beyond what we need at this stage,
instead is more for what you said "at a later stage - after harmonization has
occurred" What's more I think it would be hard for the group to agree
on the details of the scenarios at this stage, e.g. 1, 4&5 of your
list, since there could be many variations of those parameters which are
upto deployment and implementation.
So, I feel we should concentrate more on the basic of the scenarios,
e.g. what is the network relationship, who initiates the handover (e.g.
network init, terminal init), i.e. item 2 & 3 and others. How do you
think about this?
Cheers
Cheng Hong
Dear all,
To follow-up on our
telecon discussion this morning, the evaluation ad hoc group would like to
solicit volunteers to develop
a set of usage case models &
scenarios to be included in the evaluation guidelines
document.
Although the consensus was that no
performance analyses, modeling, and simulation results will be required
for the proposal
down-selection process, there is some value to develop
template scenarios in order to allow for simulation modeling /
prototype implementation at a later stage - after harmonization has
occurred.
Usage scenarios should include enough details to allow
for an experimenter to collect performance measures using either
simulation, mathematical modeling, or prototype implementation, to
replicate and compare results.
Typically usage scenarios consist
of::
1) Description of the application or traffic characterization:
e.g. voice, video, file transfer, email, etc.
2) Network topology:
number, type, location, coverage of access networks (802.11, 802.16,
cellular, etc.), location of mobile node or multi-interface terminal
(distance from access network).
3) Mobility or handover model :
description of a path from one access network to the other.
4) Meta usage models eg. residential, office, airport, train., that
would associate a set of parameters to the above three
elements.
5) Performance measures
6) whatever else you think may be
needed
If you're interested in contributing to this effort please
send your thoughts to the reflector.
Reijo Salminen has graciously
agreed to consolidate the ideas and input received and fold that into a
section on
usage scenarios in the evaluation guidelines document.
Best Regards,
nada
--
Nada Golmie, Ph.D.
Manager, High Speed Network Technologies Group
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Dr. Stop 8920
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Email: nada@nist.gov
Phone: (301) 975-4190
Fax: (301) 590-0932
Web: http://w3.antd.nist.gov
|