RE: [802.21] About 3GPP SAE contribution
The use of the 802.21 was not about the 3GPP contribution. What was being discussed was the liaison letter to FMCA. The earlier wording might have been misinterpreted by others that there is some direct liaison setup to 3GPP.
I agree that last response from 3GPP SA was not favorable to 802.21 WG liaisons. I respect this contribution is shared and discussed. I only wish we had enough time to discuss further and expand on the text, so that more companies could have added their name as contributors. As the chair mentioned we can setup some time in May. But, unfortunately this is after the 3GPP meeting.
Regards,
Srini
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 11:40 AM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] About 3GPP SAE contribution
If I remember it right, in the liaison letter to 802.21 3GPP has already made very clear that it won't be dealing with any "official 802.21 contributions". So any contributions sent to 3GPP, regardless it mentions 802.21 or not, regardless it's from a 802.21 participant or not, will be automatically treated as "individual company"
contributions. So, I don't see anything 802.21 should be worried here.
Besides, there is nowhere in Vivek's document indicating this is an official 802.21 proposal (802.21 is no even mentioned). And my understanding is that the authors' decision to share this document with the group and asking for comments and feedback here is out of courtesy - they are not required to do it.
Technically I think the proposal is in the right direction.
regards,
-Qiaobing
Wolfgang Gröting wrote:
> I believe that the presented contribution from Vivek provides a very
> good start to get things started within 3GPP. Within 3GPP, its common
> to get started with collecting requirements before starting to design
> the system architecture.
>
> However, until we haven't found a common view on the way how to go
> forward with 3GPP, I agree with Srini to provide the contribution as
> individual companies.
>
> Regards,
> Wolfgang.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Von: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. April 2006 05:06
> An: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Betreff: Re: [802.21] Telecon April 27
>
>
>
> The 3GPP contribution we discussed in the telecon today does not have
> 802.21 mentioned anywhere.
>
> It's written more along the general lines of how 802.21 services can
> help in heterogeneous handovers in 3GPP networks, without directly
> referring to 802.21.
>
> Believe that's in line with most of the views we heard on the
> teleconference.
>
>
>
> As for more discussion on this topic in May meeting, sure we can
> definitely allocate time for this in agenda.
>
> However instead of just having ad hoc discussions, it would be more
> beneficial to have focused discussions around more thought out
> themes/presentations.
>
> Contributions are sought for this topic for May meeting and depending
> on what's submitted we can allocate suitable time for this discussion.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> -Vivek
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Peretz Feder
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:44 AM
> To: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] Telecon April 27
>
>
>
> Vivek, Srini:
>
> A few issues here:
>
> 1) Not sure the 802.21 group had provided a mandate to attach 802.21
> name to any of these letters/contributions. Not sure I saw a motion
> for any of these, let alone approved motion.
> 2) Practically, if any of our members indicates this is coming from
> 802.21 he/she will fail to achieve the stated goal in 3GPP (which in
> my mind should be at best to provide same type of contribution that
> was accepted by 802.16g). So practically I will not advice it and the
> one to submit the 3GPP contributions better actually not be affiliated with 802.21.
> 3) If ((Srini is implying == after (t => May) we may want to make it
> an official tone)) go to step 2
>
>
> Peretz Feder
>
> On 4/27/2006 11:12 AM, Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
>
> Hi Vivek,
>
> I wish we had time to discuss this in a F2F and have worded more
> carefully on what we would like to achieve in 3GPP. I think we should
> still do it in the May meeting. While we are doing this, as Peretz
> suggested it would be better to provide as individual companies' view
> without using the 802.21 name. Soon after May meeting we could impart
> an official tone to this.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Srini
>
>
>