IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: Title: Initial Proposal on IEEE Down Selection Process Date Submitted: October 12, 2004 Presented at IEEE Reflector Authors or Source(s): Nada Golmie Abstract: This document provides a two-phase down selection process for IEEE to use in the evaluation and selection of proposals received. These represent the authors initial thoughts on the topic and are offered as a starting point for the discussion on down-selection.

IEEE presentation release statements This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE Working Group. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. This contribution is made by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and thus is not subject to copyright in the US. [The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEEs name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEEs sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Does not apply] The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manualhttp://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3

IEEE Proposed Two-Phase Down-Selection Process The proposed down-selection process addresses the following issues: 1)giving enough buffer time between presentations in order to work out details and build consensus 2)providing material to group ahead of time to allow for more thorough review and allow focused discussion 3) having a rule to sunset unpopular proposals after two trials. This process consists of two phases: 1.Proposal Presentation 2.Proposal Selection

Proposal Presentation 1.Proposal checklist Identify major components of contribution a)Architecture MIH Function Event Indication Information Service Other b)Handover Scenarios 802 Family: 3, 11, 15, 16 Cellular networks Other

Proposal Presentation (contd) MIH Function (refer to Call for Proposal document # ) Functional Model At the station On the network side Architectural placement in the protocol stack At the Station In the network SAP definitions To and from upper layers To and from lower layers/sub-systems State machine definition and description MIH messages Function Semantics Information normalization procedures SAP registration procedures with other layers Appendix Normalization/mapping of media dependent parameters Suggested media dependent transport for MIH messages

Proposal Presentation (contd) Event Indication (refer to Call for Proposal document # ) Functional Model High level diagram List of Events Function Semantics –Parameters (Source, Destination, …) When Generated Effect on Receipt Generic/Media Specific Local/Remote Transport Generic/Media Specific Changes to MAC Framing Appendix Normalization/Mapping to different media specific technologies Changes required/recommended in different media types, if any

Proposal Presentation (contd) Information Service (refer to Call for Proposal document # ) Functional Model Architecture Information Key Elements Organization Format Delivery Mechanism Appendix Normalization/Mapping to different media specific technologies Changes required/recommended in different media types, if any

Proposal Presentation (contd) 2. Presentation order is random as determined by the Chair 3. Time allocated to each presentation is evenly distributed among all contributors 4. Proposals are made available one week prior to presentation time in order to allow for sufficient review time. 5. No draft text at this stage of the proposals

Proposal Selection 1)Step 1 A motion to approve the proposal and make it part of the draft: should pass by 75% a) Here proposers work with editor to provide text b) If multiple, mutually exclusive proposals addressing the same requirement space pass by 75% or more, the editor will combine them and submit a motion to adopt the combined text. 2) Step 2 if Step 1 fails, a motion to ask more details to be submitted no later than the second meeting: should pass by 50% a) Here proposers come back with additional information at the second meeting (either interim or plenary) and repeat 1) b) Each proposal is given two iterations total from Step 1.

Proposal Selection 3) Step 3 if Step 2 fails in the second iteration, the proposal is eliminated from further consideration by the group. a) This proposal could be combined with others currently being discussed.

Optional Performance Metrics Although no complete performance analysis will be required for Step 1 of the proposal presentation, the following performance metrics are offered to encourage thought and careful planning for Step 2. Overhead characterization (in packets or bytes, or bytes/s) Handover delay (in milliseconds/seconds) Packet loss All three metrics could be measured at either layer 2 (MAC), layer 3 (IP), or layer 2.5 (MIH).

Optional Reference Architecture/Mechanism Comparison Given that IEEE s main objectives are to facilitate handovers among heterogeneous access networks such IEEE 802.3, 11,15, 16 and cellular networks by devising 1) functional models for a layer 2.5 and 2) messages and interfaces for layer 2.5, proposals made to IEEE can be evaluated based on how well they compare to other layer 3 handovers for example: Fast Handover Hierarchical Handover Mobile IPv6