June200821-08-0191-00-0000-Jun24 Teleconference Minutes

June200821-08-0191-00-0000-Jun24_teleconference_minutes

IEEE P802
Media Independent Handover Services

Teleconference Minutes of the IEEE P802.21 Working Group

Chair: Vivek Gupta

6:00 AMPST, Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

1.Agenda

• SB Comments Discussion

• Open issues

2.SB Comments Discussion

2.1.Cmt #2

Document:

Presenter: Yoshihiro Ohba

• Implications of applying this contribution.
• No one from the teleconference or even the WG has experience on getting Group MAC address. There is uncertainty along this path on how long it will take and what the process requires.
• The draft cannot be completed after the group MAC address number is assigned, which may imply that the draft may not be able to be submitted to the RevCom in November or even thereafter until significant changes are made.
• This approach has serious drawbacks.
• Implications of removing L2 discovery.
• We need to specify how MN can discover the PoA with L2 capability of using the EtherType.
• Certain configuration can make it work. We can remove this feature and add in the details for future revision.
• Chair will ask 802.3 WG chair and other contacts for any additional information what the process requires and how long it may take.
• Yoshi will ask Clint Chaplin if he has any addition comment/suggestion regarding the process.
• This group will check the results of investigation. If it can be done in a timely matter, we can include the resolution in the draft. The current decision is to remove this feature from the draft.

2.2.Discussion on Andrew Myles comments

Presentor: Subir Das

• Comment 29 discussions.
• Editor: There is nothing wrong or missing in draft. The primitives are defined in 802.21 to address media independent handover needs. Therefore at this point in time, the specific media does not support the features yet. Please refer to the resolution specified in
• Disagree with the comment. Add additional description on “the event subscription is an MIH capability that allows remote subscriptions” after the current resolution. No update on the draft is required.
• Comment 32 discussions.
• We do not allow vendor specific TLV, but we have vendor specific Information Element.
• In IEEE 802.11, there is a Vendor-specific action frame (ref 802.11-2007 7.4.5 Vendor-specific action details or 7.3.2.26 Vendor specific information element).
• The vendor specific TLV allows additional parameters for the primitive.
• Subir will get clarifications from the commenter and provide update for the resolution.
• Comment 34 discussions.
• Table C-4 on p191L56, we will update the second column from PERCENTAGE to be a CHOICE of PERCENTAGE or an absolute value.
• Comment 35 discussions.
• Is there a reference of draft to have any problem? Since we already have LbyR in the geo data without any reference to 802.11v, the LbyR should be already in other documents of bibliography.
• Additional update on the resolution is required.
• Comment 36 discussions.
• After emailing the commenter for comment 36 and 13, there are additional frequency ranges.
• For future updates, if there is new frequency used in IEEE 802.11, it can be appended at the end. Should the frequency be a frequency value or the band range?
• We will append the additional frequency values into the list as suggested by the commenter.
• Comment 44 and 45 discussion.
• The resolution should base on the IEEE 802.11u draft that is accessible by all 802.21 members.

2.3.Discussion on Clint Chaplin comments

• David discussed with Clint on his disposition of the current comment resolution. Clint is satisfied with the resolution. Clint is concerned of comment 18; 5.7.4 definitely should not be removed.But he will decide his vote based on the new version.

2.4.Discussion on Darwin Engwer comments

• Vivek will work on update of the figure for comment 12
• Comment 11 needs to be addressed again to clarify the reference to 802.11u draft 3.
• Figure updates on the handover scenario for comment 9 and 10 is uploaded to the server as

2.5.Discussion on Vivek Gupta comments

• IEEE 802.21 MIH protocol and OMA-DM are two candidates for the 3GPP ANDSF protocol. Analysis on how MIH protocol can be used for features such as push/pull mechanism, security, location, etc is required by the end of this week for review by other 3GPP members. The selection and choice may be decided by the end of this week or the next meeting.
• Editor: There are a lot of devil in the details on adding a new feature into the draft. We should add in a clean comprehensive contribution that won’t cause any new comments in the next SB. Otherwise, we may need additional recirculation after July.
• For the opaque policy data type may cause more controversy on how it needs to be defined, we can try to call out a 3GPP specific IE in Table 11.

3.Open issues

No other open issues.

4.Summary

• Editors will update the draft based on the updated resolutions. Chair will have a conference call with the editors on what will be status of the draft tomorrow. Hopefully we can post the draft before Jun 26 in order to allow the SB to be finished before the July meeting.
• Please provide the updated resolution/contributions for the open issues discussed in this teleconference.
• We will adjourn till next WG meeting IEEE 802 Plenary Session - July 13-18, 200 in Denver, CO.

• The teleconferenceclosed at 9 AM PST.

5.Attendance

1

802.21 WG Meeting Minutes