Get documents about "SA07_20r2 SSG Meeting Report
Shared by: wuyunqing
-
Stats
- views:
- 1
- posted:
- 9/6/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 15
Document Sample
Meeting: MESA Service Specification Group (SSG)#07
Source: SSG Secretary
Title: Summary report
Date: 24 September 2003
Agenda item: All
ATTENDEES PRESENT:
There were 42 participants at the SSG meeting. See Document SC07_02.
1 Opening Remarks
The SSG-SA meeting was called to order by Chairman Craig Jorgensen. He
recognized Vice-chairs Andy Reynolds of Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate, UK.
The Chairman welcomed everyone on behalf of the OP. He thanked Kjell Strandberg
and the ETSI Secretariat for the previous work of Line Tofte and Claire d'Esclerc.
2 Comments of host country and agency-
designated representative
None were offered at this meeting.
3 Membership introductions
Following introductory comments, a round of self-introductions followed. Attendees
introduced themselves and their affiliations. A complete list of delegates may be found
at www.projectmesa.org
4 Approval of proposed agenda
The Chairman mentioned that there would be a breakout session to review the previous
action item list. He added that the meeting would be speeded up in an attempt to start
TG SYS work today. The agenda and proposed changes were approved without
comment.
5 Review of outstanding work assignments
The Chairman initiated a discussion of open work items from the Ottawa meeting,
identified in the SSG_SA06 meeting minutes.
Reference document: Project MESA SSG Action Items 1
Item 1 (Review of all SoR documents): No new inputs were received.
Item 2 (Vice-chair nominations): Andy Reynolds accepted reappointment to the position
of Vice-chairman of SSG-SA.
Item 3 (Authorization to CEFRIEL to continue mapping activities): No action was
needed at this meeting.
Item 4: (TSG Document reviews): The committee was broken into four work groups to
address each of the following documents, to review and comment on the applicability of
the document to the process from a user perspective. The documents include:
SYS06 – 09 “Monitor and inform other MESA entities of new and emerging
activities (802.11x, Hiperlan, DVB, 3GPP, 3GPP2, etc,that may fall within
the scope of project MESA.”
The SSG_SA agreed with the Chairman that this document is a living document,
and it will require constant review and updates.
SYS06 – 10 “Comments to SYS_06 Study of Wireless LANs standards and their
possible applicability to MESA.”
SYS10 - 10 “WLAN (CEFRIEL WLAN Technical Requirements.” Specific recs John
Powel – Task Group #2
1. Is this item intended to supplement SoR, or stand alone? Seems to be
between SoR and DTS?
2. In Section 4, 4.1 the group recommended an effort be made to resolve
operational definitions.
3. The group believes the document needs to be expanded to include ad
hoc and MANET.
4 The group feels that in Section 4.2 the gross rate needs to be added.
5. They recommend the packet rate details in Section 4.3 should be retitled.
6. In Section 4.4, Quality of Services (QoS) authentication, security needs to
be included.
9. The group approved some proposed changes by Robert Furtaw as noted
below:
The group recommended the inclusion of all the above changes and
recommended the SSG forward the document to the SC and the TSG for further
consideration and appropriate action. Task Group Chair Powell also indicated he
would forward a copy of the group‟s comments to Dr. De Francesco under a
separate cover.
SYS06 – 12r1 “Open Issues.”
Minimal comment was offered on this document. It is primarily a listing of
headings, with minimal detail. It was noted that CEFRIEL would be presenting
an update of the document later in the week.
No action was taken on the document.
SYS06 – 14 “Roadmap proposal for MESA technology development” - Dr. Bovim
and Mr. Phuong Vu – Working Group #4
Dr. Bovim and Mr. Phuong Vu‟s Task Group #4 work group expressed a belief
that the document is usable with some additional work. Their recommendations
included the following:
1. At the Project MESA meeting on September 24, 2003, TG4 began their
discussions by reviewing SYS01_14 "Roadmap."
2. Concerning the document "Roadmap," TG4 had some difficulty relating
activities required to complete the project with actions shown in the graph.
Some additional narrative is required to help the reader understand better
what should be involved in each milestone. For example, does the action
regarding technical specifications include the process of writing the
standard or does it focus only on spectrum issues?
3. Task Group #4 members generally had concern that trying to deal with
spectrum allocation may delay the work due to discrepancy of spectrum
identified between Region 1 and other Regions. Following the Resolution
646 of WRC-2003 on PPDR, TG4 agreed that this should not hold back
the work on the next milestone regarding the architecture.
4. Some members of TG4 felt that normally the work relating to the network
architecture would be an activity of the individual manufacturers; we
therefore believe some clarification is required if we intend in Project
MESA to define technology standards, and the architecture within the
scope of the Project MESA process. The road map does not make it
clear that this delineation exists.
5. TG #4 recommends that the timeline be better defined to provide the
reader a better view of the objective in time of the project. Depending on
the option chosen, either from an existing technology or from a
technology to be developed, this timeline should be realistic.
6. As indicated in item #5, the work regarding the time planned for the
writing of the standard is not clearly identified. It will help to clarify if this
work is included in each milestone or if it will be done in parallel; the time
frame should be indicated.
7. The TG #4 felt the last document on "Revised Specification Plan" was
found as a very good proposal, it is logical and should be considered by
the TSG. TG4 had some concern with the dates shown, particularly those
of the output of MESA meeting.
The document was approved by the committee for forwarding to the Steering
Committee with a recommendation that the Steering Committee pass the
document and recommendations from the working group on to TSG-SYS.
SYS06 – 15 “Comments on SYS01_07 Identification and derivation of the
Technical Requirements from the SoR” - Mr. Murphy. Working Group #1
Mr. Murphy‟s group made the following comments and recommendations:
1. The group recommended some language and nomenclature changes and
updates to clarify its intent and purpose.
2. The working group asked if it were the intent of the users to have voice
services considered a primary function of a MESA network. The
SSG_SA confirmed that voice services were not and are not intended as
the “primary” services. The Chair noted that Project MESA is intended to
provide a full range of data transport service and, in that context, voice
communications would be considered an ancillary function. He further
noted that public protection and public safety providers will continue to
depend on their existing and future wireless, two-way voice networks and
system(s) for their critical voice communications systems where they can
more easily control competition for spectrum.
3. The group recommended that the term “interoperability” be defined
to reflect it generally on address systems in a given user’s
geographical area.
Action item: Mr Murphy‟s team volunteered to develop language and
find a place in the SoR to make to make it clear that
Project MESA is intended to provide a wide range of
broadband data services. While there are needs for
ancillary voice services, those services are not intended
to replace existing land mobile, wireless, two-way public
protection and public safety radio networks that provide
critical voice communictation without competing for
spectrum.
Action item: The working group is drafting a definition of what
constitutes a rural area or fits a rural definition which may
include several elements.
The document was approved by the committee for forwarding to the Steering
Committee with a recommendation that the Steering Committee pass the
document and recommendations from the working group on to TSG-SYS.
SYS06 – 17 “MESA Strategy on EMC and Environment” – Mr. Powell – Working
Group #2
Some detailed information from Task Group #2 is still outstanding.
SYS01 – 19 “Criteria For Mapping SoR Into Technical Requirements” - Mr.
Reynolds – Working Group #3
Mr. Reynolds‟ team offered several comments on the document. He has
provided detailed comments to Dr. De Francesco with the Comments on
Document 19 – Criteria for Mapping the SOR in to Technical Requirements
Those comments were as follows:
1. Slide 3
a. „Low‟ should read „Law‟
b. 2 bullets required: Law Enforcement (Policing) and Criminal Justice.
c. „Fire‟ should read „Fire & Rescue Service‟
2. Slide 4
a. Scenarios should include „Planned Events‟
b. Where does the12 come from? (Please review and take appropriate
action)
3. Slide 5
a. When does a „large emergency incident‟ become a „disaster‟?
b. Disaster definition requires additional wording relating to loss of
infrastructure.
4. Slide 6
a. Further category required.
b. Define remote in terms of population and available services.
c. Expand definition of infrastructure.
d. Include possible underground disasters or emergencies as well.
5. Slide 7
a. Coverage - Single also named „hot spot‟ or in addition to single spot.
b. Needs size definition for each category of coverage area.
6. Slide 8
a. Title of slide is wrong.
b. Audio – should this category include voice communications?
c. Reference required to Volume, Speed and Data rates.
d. Location Functionality is required – both for personnel and
equipment.
7. Slide 9
a. Title of slide is wrong.
b. There are more systems than those that are listed.
c. Contents should not be in a table but listed.
d. The term „Fixed‟ should read „Fixed/Stationary‟.
e. Also include LAN and UWB.
8. Slide 10
a. Contents should not be in a table but listed.
b. Include Still Picture (Image) as well as Video.
c. CDMA (TIA/EIA-95-B-is-2000) should also be added.
d. Please add to the first list under GSM, “ITU-R MI457.”
9. Slide 11 &12
a. New title required; these two slides need some definition and
explanation.
10. Slide 13
a. Definitions need to be reviewed, to include „remote‟ and possible
other definitions.
b. May be „underground‟ as well.
Mr. Reynolds identified that Task GrouP #4 had the following general concerns.
1. The existing document includes a number of spelling problems that need
to be addressed.
2. The document needs more emphasis on “policing” or enforcement over
the general category of “criminlal justice.
: 3. Some differentiation between health services, emergency medical
services and disaster services (disaster relief) would be beneficial to
ensuring the reader had a clear understanding of the intent and scope of
the document.
4. The task group recommends the reference to „fire‟ be changed to „fire and
rescue.‟
5. The task group believe the document would be enhanced with the
inclusion of addition “planned events.”
6. It was recommended that these senerios should include indoor and rural
incidents.
7. They should includ a “single site” and the incident may or may not equate
to a hot spot.
8. UWB should also be referenced.
9. The group felt that the slides comparing pixels and displays would benefit
from added descriptive verbiage.
10. Several slide would benefit from bullet points being replaced by tables.
11. As noted previously, the group felt that indoor disasters, such as a fire in
the underground, should be added.
The document was approved by the committee for forwarding to the Steering
Committee with a recommendation that the Steering Committee pass the
document and recommendations from the working groups on to TSG-SYS.
SYS01 – 20, “MESA System Reference Model and Architecture” - Dr. Bovim and Mr. Vu
– Woking Group #4
The Next document Task Group #4 reviewed was the "SYS01_20 "MESA
System Reference Model and Architectures"
1. After reviewing the "MESA System Reference Model and Architectures,"
TG4 felt it is a very good document and should be considered by the
SSG, TSG and SC in their discussions. This presentation covers most
important models and architectures. However, TG4 has a comment
concerning Fig.5: It should be noted that discussions in previous
meetings highlighted Mesh Mobile Network, which are absent in this
section. We believe it should be considered as one of many possible
network solutions.
The document was approved by the committee for forwarding to the Steering
Committee with a recommendation that the Steering Committee pass the
document and recommendations from the working groups on to TSG-SYS.
SYS01 – 21, “Mapping Identified Services Into Their Relevant Categories” - Mr.
Murphy – Working Group #1
Action item: Mr Murphy‟s team volunteered to develop language and
find a place in the SoR to make to make it clear that
Project MESA is intended to provide a wide range of
broadband data services. While there are needs for
ancillary voice services, those services are not intended
to replace existing land mobile, wireless, two-way public
protection and public safety radio networks that provide
critical voice communictation without competing for
spectrum.
Action item: The working group has agreed to draft a new definition
for what constitues a rural area in the context of Project
MESA. This defination may include several several
elements.
Action item: The group recommended that generally interoperability
address only systems in a given user‟s geographic area
which would indicate a need to up-date the SoR and this
document to reflect that concept.
The document was approved by the committee for forwarding to the Steering
Committee with a recommendation that the Steering Committee pass the
document and recommendations from the working group on to TSG-SYS.
SYS01 – 22 “Examples of MESA Architectures” – Mr. Murphy – Task Group #1
Action item: Mr. Murphy‟s working group will provide additional
language to better define the flowchart in this document.
The document was approved by the committee for forwarding to the Steering
Committee with a recommendation that the Steering Committee pass the
document and recommendations from the working group on to TSG-SYS.
SYS01 – 23, “Revised Specification Plan”
Dr. Bovim and Mr. Phuong Vu‟s Task Group #4 work group expressed a belief
that the document SYS01_23r2 "Revised Specification Plan".is very good and
usable as it was submitted.
1. The TG #4 felt the last document on "Revised Specification Plan" was
found as a very good proposal; it is logical and should be considered by
the TSG. TG4 had some concern with the dates shown, particularly those
of the output of MESA meeting 7.
SYS01 – 23, “Revised Specification Plan”
In general, all groups found the document usable and recommended its adoption
by the TSG. Some concern was expressed for the various dates: a review is felt
to be in order.
6 Presentation by Ricardo (Rick) Murphy – SoR
Executive Summary
Mr. Murphy reviewed the SoR Executive Summary document submitted by the Public
Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), describing it as a brief overview of the SoR. He noted
it offers a high-level view of the SoR, providing the reader an idea of what the document
is, with pointers to where material on specific subjects is located. It includes an
identification of each section. In addition, the Executive Summary goes into the primary
focus areas of the SoR (see the first page for categories). The Chairman mentioned that
PSWN submission had been on the web for 30 days, so everyone should have some
familiarity with its contents. With very little discussion, the SSG agreed to include the
Executive Summary into the formal Project MESA SoR documents relating to the SoR,
recognizing it (SoR) is a living document. It was also agreed that it would
simultaneously forward it to the Steering Committee for their comments, where
appropriate. Following this action, it was noted by the Secretariat that the proposal to
insert an Executive Summary will create the need for ETSI to issue a new release of the
SoR, reflecting this addition. That update requires the completion of specific “Action”
documentation, which has not been done in this case. It was noted that while the staff
would take the steps necessary to resolve this problem for this document, it would be
helpful if the process were followed in the future. The Chair asked the Secretariat to set
aside an appropriate amount of time in the next meeting to review this process one more
time.
7 Presentation by Egil Bovim / Jan Bording
Dr. Bording presented document SA(2003)009. Dr. Bording proposes that the MESA
process should focus first on all of the services that are necessary for Project MESA
before addressing network architecture concerns. He suggests the SSG should start
with a set of scenarios, and then describe what service or services are needed to
address the issues presented in the scenario. The process is iterative until all such
scenarios are addressed. Only then should the process address network issues. The
hypothesis is that the network should be defined to support services, and not merely
scenarios. The justification is that this is the best way to define interoperability.
He continued, adding that many such services are likely to have one or more existing
standards; therefore, MESA must specify which standard it wants to adopt for each
service. In cases where standards don‟t exist for a given service, then MESA has the
responsibility to define the service and then develop an appropriate standard. An
interesting highlight is that services may well have different criteria when comparing
normal operations with emergency operations. He cited a number of examples. For
example, the scenarios mention medical monitoring, but do not mention sensors at all.
The Chairman thanked Dr. Bording for the report, and asked for comments from the
committee.
Comments
Mr. Azemard offered a comment on Section 4.2, mentioning that ISSI work in the
TIA-TR8 ISSI Task Group might be applicable to Project MESA. He did not
elaborate further. The Chairman asked Mr. Oblak if he might elaborate on the
TIA activity; Mr. Oblak had nothing more to offer.
The Chairman commented that some desired services at this time do not have
developed standards. He agreed with the concept that such services will need
standards, either developed in this venue or elsewhere. Either way, these yet to
be developed standards will need inclusion in the Project MESA standards or
interfaces. The Chairman also commented that a prioritization of adoption or
development activities would be required. He added that the Committee‟s
current view is that the network-related standards work should occur first,
followed by services development/definition activities. The Chairman added that
the concepts offered by Dr. Bovim offer an interesting and important point of
view, and encouraged all members to review and comment on the document
(SA2003_09), and forward those comments to the Secretariat for distribution to
SSG_SA and TSG-SYS committee members.
Mr. Strandberg commented that some in the process believe that MESA is to be
a dedicated network, ignoring that other work is occurring in parallel that could be
useful. He asked if the process is moving in the correct direction in pursuit of a
dedicated network, rather than writing specifications for services first, then
determining which (if any) existing public or private networks might support such
services. Mr. Strandberg offered his opinion that Dr. Bovim‟s contribution is more
in line with the direction MESA should pursued. Mr. Powell countered that
broadband is being used already by public safety in the US, adding that such
agencies are willing to make investments for hot spots as fixed investments,
supplemental to voice services. He added that user view is that MESA will never
replace mission critical voice services.
Mr. Haakinson supported the use of XML, mentioning that industry and the US
government are doing considerable research in this area.
The Chair requested each of the MESA SSG members to review Dr. Bovim‟s
presentation prior to October 30, 2003, and submit their comments to the
Secretariat within 45 days, where they will be compiled and placed on the MESA
web site for further SSG review. He further noted that Dr. Bovim had also offered
to consolidate those comments for submission to the next SSG. Finally, the
Chair noted that the process is intended to be inclusive and not exclusive, and it
is incumbent on all interested parties to become involved in the process and on
us to encourage their involvement. He noted that he has had a number of
discussion with Mr. Strandberg during the past week regarding what he believed
was the users‟ position that their interest was in obtaining the quality, level and
type of service they required at a reasonable cost. How the service was provided
or by whom only becomes a factor in ensuring the public protection and public
safety received the priority and quality of service they need, in the areas they
need it, at a cost they can justify.
Everyone agreed they would review this submission again and provide their
comments, if any, within the defined time frame.
8 Review of proposed project material presented
by Cefriel in April 2003 TSG meetings
This item was covered in the working groups, and reported on in Agenda Item 5.
9 The SSG‟s review of Cefriel Project MESA
Questionnaire
Dr. De Francesco introduced a proposed survey format developed by CEFRIEL. The
purpose is to identify and quantify a number of critical user parameters. The SSG
attempted to review the survey instrument point by point. Over the course of the
presentation, many of the participants offered comments to either expand or minimize
the variables in many of the questions and the questionnaire in general.
The changes were discussed in terms of their applicability to every day emergency
incidents, and special event planning. Examples of such variables include the scope,
size, and response to an incident, and the general environment of the incident itself. A
number of areas in the survey document were identified for expansion and clarification.
Mr. Thompson questioned the repetitive use of the words “intervention,” “emergency,”
and “disaster.” Mr. Powell suggested consistency with the SoR, offering the terms used
by NPSTC, day-to-day, task force, and mutual aid, and offered to provide a copy to
CEFRIEL. Mr. Furtaw asked where in the document can we find information regarding
system design elements, such as users‟ geographic area, system loading, traffic
modelling, proposed system access time, which are but a few examples of what might
need to be identified and accounted for. Mr. McKinley expressed a concern that while
he agreed the information is necessary, randomly asking a user is not likely to provide a
reliable answer. Mr. Furtaw added that different types of responders have different
operational aspects; and questioned how CEFRIEL might sort and aggregate the
responses so they are segregated by service type. For example, will all the fire
responses be in one batch and all the law enforcement in another? Will they segregate
response from the web from those of SSG members or questionnaires distributed by
the manufacturers? Mr. Thompson questioned the value of discreet percentages in
several areas, suggesting perhaps that a rating of low, medium, or high importance may
be more useful. The committee in general seemed opposed to the term “tele-
presence.”
Rick Murphy asked if this survey is to be given in reference to specific questions, or
generically. The Chairman commented that there needs to be a way to put a fence
around the information being gathered. He highlighted his perception of the distinctions
of the vertical scaling between “Public Protection” and “Public Services” and “Mission
Critical” activities, and asked for comments the group may have with regard to how or
should these groups and their responses be segregated. He noted that MESA services
will cover the entire landscape of services, but will we be able to survey them all?
There were no comments or responses to the question. Mr. Redaelli commented that
different respondents would have different answers.
Mr Murphy also suggested a small group be formed to work with Dr. De Francesco to
revise the survey instrument. Volunteers included Mr. Nyberg, Mr. Furtaw, Mr. Powell,
Mr. Reynolds, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Jorgensen, and Mr. Haakinson. The proposal was
unanimously accepted.
The document was approved by the committee for forwarding to the Steering Committee
with a recommendation that the Steering Committee pass the document and
recommendations from the working group on to TSG-SYS for their review and
comments, as appropriate.
10 Break-out sessions of SoR priorities
No breakout sessions on prioritization occurred.
11 Review any outstanding issues or proposed
changes to the current version of the
Statement of Requirements (SoR)1
Other than the PSWN submittal of an Executive Summary of the SoR (see item 5), no
other changes were submitted.
12 Review change requests for the Glossary of
Terms2
No changes were submitted.
13 Review change requests for the Project MESA
matrix3
No changes were submitted.
14 Approval of the change requests for the SoR
The PSWN submittal of an Executive Summary was approved (see Agenda Items 5 and
11). No other changes were submitted; therefore, there was no other need for approval.
15 Approval of the change requests for the
Glossary of Terms
No changes were submitted; therefore, there was no need for approval.
16 Approval of the change requests for the
Project MESA matrix
No changes were submitted; therefore, there was no need for approval.
1 Additions and changes will be made at the discretion of the SSG, based on prior submissions of Change Requests (see
http://www.projectmesa.org/CR.htm).
2 Additions and changes will be made at the discretion of the SSG, based on prior submissions of Change Requests (see
http://www.projectmesa.org/CR.htm).
3 Additions and changes will be made at the discretion of the SSG, based on prior submissions of Change Requests (see
http://www.projectmesa.org/CR.htm).
17 Review and consideration of work assignments
from the Project MESA Steering Committee or
the Project MESA Technical Specifications
Groups
No assignments were received from the Steering Committee nor the TSG-SYS
committee.
18 Position of European Vice-chair
Mr. Andy Reynolds approved as Vice-chair of the SSG
19 Any other business
ETSI rules require an annual reviel of all work items. Thos items where no action has
taken place should be cancelled or withdrawn. It was requested that the SSG review
EMTEL work activities that apparently fall in the category. Continuation, W.I. #4: The
Copenhagen Fire Brigade indicated that while no apparent activies were taking place, they
would request that this item remain open until the next meeting. They indicated that Vice-
chair Andy McFarland had intended to offer new information and a work proposal on
behalf of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, and the Copenhangen Fire Brigade; however, he is
not in attendance at this week‟s meeitng. They further indicated the action plan was to
demonstrate the emergency dispatch center in Phoenix with CPH. Mr. Thompson added
that TIA – TR45 is pursuing similar work related to E9-1-1 in the United States.
It was agreed that the next meeting of the SSG would be held in North America, during
the April timeframe of 2004. Final location and dates are yet to be finalized. There
being no further business to discuss, the Chairman called for a motion to adjourn. The
motion was offered by Mr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. McKinley, and unnanimously
approved at 5:05 PM. The Chairman thanked all of the delegates for their participation
and contributions.
1st box – should link scenario requirements and development plan, keeping in mind that
the SoR is a living document and requires a continual review cycle
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Reviewed Title Document
document number
SYS06-09 Monitor and inform other
MESA entities of new and
emerging activities
(802.11x, Hiperlan, DVB,
3GPP, 3GPP2, etc.)
falling within the scope of
project MESA
SYS06-10 Comments to SYSS_06 SYS007-006
(Study of Wireless LANs
standards and their
possible applicability to
MESA)
SYS06-12r1 Open Issues SYS007-007
SYS06-14 Roadmap proposal for
MESA technology
development.
SYS06-15 Comments on SYS01_07
Identification and
derivation of the
Technical Requirements
from the SoR
SYS06-17 MESA Strategy on EMC
and Environment
SYS01-19 Criteria For Mapping SoR SA_007_013 Mr. Murphy‟s working group
Into Technical is to provide some word-
Requirements smithing and nomenclature
updates. The working group
and the SSG_SA confirmed
that voice services are
secondary services only;
MESA is a data network only.
A recommendation that
interoperability address only
systems in a given user‟s
geographic area. Action
item: The working group is
drafting a definition of rural,
with several elements.
SYS01-20 MESA System Reference SA_007_014
Model and Architectures
SYS01-21 Mapping Identified SA_007_015 Mr. Murphy‟s working group
Services Into Their is to provide some word-
Relevant Categories smithing and nomenclature
updates. The working group
and the SSG_SA confirmed
that voice services are
secondary services only;
MESA is a data network only.
A recommendation that
interoperability address only
systems in a given user‟s
geographic area. Action
item: The working group is
draft a definition of rural, with
several elements.
SYS01-22 Examples of MESA SA_007_017 Mr. Murphy‟s working group
Architectures is to draft verbiage to
accompany the flowchart in
this document.
