802 Handoff ECSG EC Opening Plenary Report

1. 802 Handoff ECSGEC Opening Plenary Report David Johnston david.johnston@ieee.org dj.johnston@intel.com David Johnston, Intel

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

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 David Johnston, Intel

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. David Johnston, Intel

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) David Johnston, Intel

6. Placement • The group (11,0,0) unanimously re-approved recommending placing the work as a new working group David Johnston, Intel

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 David Johnston, Intel

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. David Johnston, Intel

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. David Johnston, Intel

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 wouldn’t normally interface with the wired focused standards groups in IEEE. David Johnston, Intel

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. David Johnston, Intel

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 802.1’s 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. David Johnston, Intel

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. David Johnston, Intel

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 David Johnston, Intel

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) David Johnston, Intel

16. Purpose • Focused on improving user experience of mobile devices David Johnston, Intel