| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
From: Reijo Salminen [mailto:reijo.salminen@seesta.com] Hi, Vivek I agree that a more formal definition of
this activity is needed, and I’m working on it. I’ll find out what
has been used in other groups within IEEE, as well as in other SDO’s. We have ‘seamless’ in the PAR,
which is a metric, and what it means in numbers depends on what is being handed
over. Stability is also a metric, even though it is not explicitly visible in
the PAR, what I mean we should have a system that does not start to oscillate
(perform cyclic handovers), behave in a consistent way and so on. Based on my experience from the 5 cellular
systems I’ve been involved, the handovers have always been the last ones
that have come out from testing (due to different ‘surprises’
that pop up in eg. System test phase when different system elements are put
together, and since it is the most difficult feature in a cellular system), and
I’m sure we will have the same situation also. But in our case if such a
surprise ends up into the standard before it is been caught – then we
would need to run and fast. [ There may be a difference between what you describe above
and the work in 802.21. Seems like in this case a complete system level
definition of handover including appropriate protocols etc. was specified. That
is not the case with 802.21 where we are using existing protocols and mostly optimizing
the handover process. So to give some perspective, once we have a formal system level
definition of test bed for our performance evaluation etc. it should be
possible initially to do handovers in some form without use of 802.21, and then
we could probably use the same system to do handovers using mechanisms
specified in 802.21. In my view, a comparison of metrics between the two cases
would likely be a fair evaluation of mechanisms specified in 802.21. Do you see the .21 specific media specific
amendments as being initiated from the .21 proposals, or from the specific
groups? If they originate from .21 we should first check that they will also
work. Same thing with the cellular interworking functionalities. [ I would expect .21 folks to initiate this activity. The work
would likely be carried out in media specific groups. We may have more insight into this as we reach draft text. BR, Reijo From: From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Reijo Salminen The intention is to start the development
of usage models/scenarios in parallel with the evaluation and down selection.
It is going to be a tough job to fulfill, but it is a mandatory task in the
development of the 802.21 standard. As in any complex system activity
– what the development of 802.21 also is, the planning of verification
activities must started at an early stage, both to help in understanding the
complexity of the problem, to ensure good quality of the outcome, and to reduce
overall lead time. [ You bring an interesting point about “verification of
standard”. What does this really mean and how do other groups in IEEE
typically handle this? So far we have not specified any performance specific or
even otherwise any “numbers/metrics” etc. that 802.21 needs to
meet, both as part of the PAR and also the requirements document. So we may need a more
formal definition of this verification process to get a better understanding of
expectations. Also will it be feasible to do this verification before the
802.21 specific media specific amendments have been done? Would it help if it was a separate
document instead of a chapter in the evaluation document? [ That’s fine as long as this is not linked to
evaluation guidelines/criteria. I would just like to see the evaluation guideline document development
process close in a timely manner! Best Regards -Vivek From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Nada Golmie Dear all, [ The evaluation guidelines document should basically help
with evaluations and down selection. If the above information is NOT going to help with
evaluation and down selection, then it should NOT be included in evaluation
guideline document. |