1. 11-03-098r0-WNG Interworking Comments and Issues
January 2003
r0-WNG Interworking Comments and Issues
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

2. Last time…. Yesterday mixed response to PAR plan.
January 2003
Last time….
Yesterday mixed response to PAR plan.
Continue to think about these issues.
Recommend that this be re-visited in Today’s session.
Require concrete steps for consideration
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

3. January 2003
Fundamentals
Elevate interworking to a level similar to a SG or a TG, to create a stronger push for new standards.
SG is only a short term solution.
Do we have enough experts in this group to make it worthwhile ?
Should this activity be a standard, or a recommended practice?
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

4. January 2003
Scope Issues
The scope suggests that we cannot standardize interworking. There is no chance this can become a standard. Best hope is recommended practice.
We want to standardize the external interface at the edge of the WLAN access network.
We’re not duplicating work of 3GPP, because we are defining the WLAN aspects of the external interface. They are defining the network aspects.
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

5. January 2003
Scope II
Isn’t some of this outside the scope of that stops at the top of the MAC interface. If agnostic to air interface, not clear how this fits in.
There is no rule that says is limited to MAC and PHY.
Where this group sits is an important point.
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

6. January 2003
3GPP
3GPP have said that they view wireless LAN as a black box, and their protocols are out of scope of 3GPP. It seems like this activity is a new case for , for example in instances where charging is applicable.
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

7. January 2003
IETF
Protocols are IETF protocols – so should have a strong interest and want to re-use a lot of these
needs an activity to pull the protocols together.
IETF has many pieces, but we need to take control of the interworking solution for and look after our own interests. (e.g. fixes, amendments, approval etc)
But we require a definitive statement from them as to how we can take this forward.
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

8. January 2003
WIG influence
Does the output from a new group, still have to go through MMAC and ETSI for approval?
This would be a group under rules, but whatever this group produces should be a joint effort endorsed by all 3 organizations.
How will upcoming WIG #2 meeting in Japan affect this? (Organized by MMAC)
WIG #2 is independent regardless of the outcome of this group. WIG #2 will continue as a body to pull together joint discussions.
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

9. January 2003
Outcome
What do we want to obtain from WNG standing committee before WIG #2.
What does want to do with this issue :
Continue the work in WNG as a study group activity. Establish stronger liaisons with 3GPP, 3GPP2 and IETF.
Continue to create a TG.
Or give the issue to someone else.
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

10. January 2003
Liaisons
Have already sent out numerous liaisons to lots of organizations.
Need to continue sending out liaisons and sorting out relationships to people doing similar things.
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor

11. WIG mailing list wig@list.etsi.fr January 2003
Stephen McCann, Siemens Roke Manor