802 Handoff ECSG EC Opening Plenary Report

1
802 Handoff ECSGEC Opening Plenary Report

• David Johnston
• david.johnston_at_ieee.org
• dj.johnston_at_intel.com

2
Officers

• Chair
• David Johnston (Intel)
• Recording Secretary
• Michael G. Williams (Nokia)
• Vice Chair
• Ajay Rajkumar (Lucent) was elected unanimously as
  vice chair

3
Activities last session

• Technical Work
• Cellular-wlan coupling models
• 802.16e alignment
• Reconsidered Placement wrt 802.1af and 802.21
• Produced and agreed position statements
• Developed PAR and 5C that had universal support
  in the group
• Agreed a Title
• Media Independent Handover

4
Title

• Media Independent Handover
• Changed handoff to handover to align with other
  handover activities in 802
• Media Independent
• Addressed the basic differentiating feature of
  the standard
• Does not address the general mobility
  optimizations the standard may address. Too much
  detail in the title.

5
Officer Volunteers

• Volunteers with employer support are available to
  take on officer positions
• Existing officers all are willing to take on
  roles
• David Johnston (chair)
• Michael Williams (Editor)
• Ajay Rajkumar (Vice chair/Secretary)

6
Placement

• The group (11,0,0) unanimously re-approved
  recommending placing the work as a new working
  group

7
Placement Position Statements

• EC Requested we address 802.1 option
• We went through the issues, asked the same
  question, got the same answer
• To move the debate on, we developed position
  statements that encapsulated the motivations of
  all individuals in the group for preferring WG
  status
• All agreed their opinions were represented
• None disagreed with any of the statements

8
PPS 1 Type Of Standard

• 802.1 has concentrated on 802 level architectural
  standards, albeit not exclusively.
• There appears to be a default mapping between 802
  handover and 802.1 based on the media access
  independent nature of the 802 handover proposal.

9
PPS 2 Wired and Wireless Focus

• 802.1 emphasized wired technology (E.G. 802.1X is
  a wired-focused standard).
• The handover standard will probably be used most
  commonly by wireless users, however it must
  necessarily address both the wired and wireless
  cases simultaneously.
• As a separate WG we are in a position to attract
  people with the skill to address both wired and
  wireless domains. 802.1 has a large majority of
  people with a wire oriented skill set.

10
PPS 3 Liasons

• We believe a WG focused on handover issues as we
  currently understand them needs to have a focused
  and vigorous liaison process with other important
  standardization bodies. E.G. The IETF, 3GPP and
  3GPP2.
• Liaison for this work need to be focused on
  specific IETF efforts and cellular standards that
  wouldnt normally interface with the wired
  focused standards groups in IEEE.

11
PPS 4 Avoiding Imposition on 802.1

• We anticipate putting a significant amount of
  effort into working and communicating technical
  issues with other standards bodies both external
  and internal to the IEEE, particularly wireless
  groups.
• Since these interactions should be made at a WG
  level, this would imply a substantial increment
  to the workload in 802.1 while 802.1 is heavily
  occupied with LinkSec and HiLi.

12
PPS 5 Interworking with IEEE Groups

• We expect in interim and ad hoc sessions we would
  be seeking to co-locate with other wireless
  groups in order to coordinate technically. E.G.
  802.11, 802.16, 802.20.
• The organizational benefits from 802.1s meeting
  organization efforts are not felt by the handover
  group. We would be benefiting equally from the
  meeting organization efforts of other groups.
• Therefore one of the principle reasons for
  locating disjoint work within a WG (I.E.
  organizational effort sharing) does not apply.

13
PPS 6 EC Representation

• A number of organizations attach high importance
  to these interworking efforts within the IEEE.
• It is felt that to achieve appropriate
  representation, EC representation is necessary to
  defend the interests of the group.

14
PAR and 5 Criteria

• Group voted unanimously (22,0,0) to approve a PAR
  and 5 Criteria for forwarding to the EC for
  review and approval

15
Scope Issues

• Needed to address
• The aspects of handover supported
• Network detection and selection
• All coupling models
• Relationship to existing L2 handover mechanisms
• Compatibility with 802 architectural model
• Needed to Prevent
• Definition of security
• Needed to Allow
• Necessary interaction with other 802 security
  mechanisms
• Needed to leave open
• Coupling to backhaul services (other forums still
  in flux)
• Precise mechanisms used (feasible mechanisms
  identified, but used only as feasibility proof,
  not agreement on the standard)

16
Purpose

• Focused on improving user experience of mobile
  devices