Subject: Re: Radio Access Network Protocols (was: Re: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement)

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 15:01:47 -0700 (PDT)

Hi PhilN,

> The problem I have with MWIF is that (last time I checked)
>its sole purpose in life is/was to influence 3GPP2 and 3GPP, two cellular
>standards.  What we had hoped for in CRAPS is what Ron Akers (Bluetooth
>BOF co-chair) called the "uber-alles" [forgot umlaut] RF protocol [he was
>not fond of the idea of a one size fits all either].
>

There are some of us who don't like this restriction in MWIF's mission
and we are trying to change it. If we are not successful, you are
likely to see a significant decrease in technical participation in MWIF.
If we are, then there will be radio access network protocol development
done there. MWIF has gone about as far as it can go in influencing
the 3Gs.

>But I DONT want one size fits all.  I wanted to specify the requirements for
>essentially a base class (in OO terms), from which individual implementors
>or RF protocols can inherit most of the important mechanisms and use the
>protocol equivalent of virtual functions for their radio specifics [which by
>no means have to be standardized in the IETF]. The protocol could provide
>a "framework" if you will for doing RF in the IETF.  

Well, the OpenRAN architecure attempts to define that kind of framework.
The intent of doing the protocol development is to come up with
a common protocol that would allow customization for different radio
link layers. So the common protocol would handle stuff like power
control, channel allocation, congestion resolution, etc., which would then be 
customized to particular radio links by configuration. And if a particular radio
link protocol didn't need a particular function, it could be dropped.
I'm tempted to say macrodiversity resolution for TDMA fits in this
class, but, as you've pointed out, it might be possible to do macrodiversity
resolution with an IP layer protocol.

		jak