Re: [6gip] Minutes taken by Dirk

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:46 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Here are Dirk's notes from our side meeting:
>
> Minutes of side meeting 6Gip during IETF#108 online – July 27, 2020 16h UTC
> About 20 people had dialed in. After some technical issues (not with
> Meetecho but Webex) Behcet
> went over the slides posted on the ML.
> Alex asked in the chat for clarification what Mandate (in Mandate-Driven
> Architecture) does mean.
> Behcet replied that ”mandate” is seen as collection of network services
> required from underlying
> network(s) to comply with dynamic end-to-end QoS needs from specific
> applications (in the WP)
> Lars complained in the chat: so if the proponents of this effort are
> planning on asking people to
> make time on their schedules for another side meeting at some time in the
> future, *please* have
> some actual content planned for presentation and discussion.
> Behcet agreed: OK Lars
> Colins key feedback was that IRTF does not work on overarching
> architecture but particular subtopics
> and problem statements – AI is already worked on in NMRG and computing in
> COIN and a
> contribution/collaboration there regarding 6G should be investigated.
> Alex tried to answer on what 6G is – perhaps (at least) true IPv6 but much
> more: futuristic use cases
> and scenarios, eventually what will be mandatory use cases?
> Lars said that it was not clear before the meeting what we were asking for.
> Alex mentioned that successful RGs have started low – but Lars emphasized
> that they dealt with a
> well scoped problem.
> Colin said that development from 5G to 6G is no concrete focus, not worked
> on by existing RGs.
> Behcet argued that network management is also no real focus.
> Dirk tried to explain how MDA could serve here.
> Marco asked which term could be moving towards a solution. It should be
> worked on gaps between
> SBA++ and current enhanced SBA (Rel. 16/17).
> Behcet mentioned future use cases and Alex clarified that hologram use
> case mentioned in WP
> requires much bandwidth.
>


Alex had mentioned a few requirements/ use cases like self driving cars
which is not captured in the minutes.

Alex can you please remind them?

Behcet

> Lars: use case done meant problem statement (?) and reminds that IntServ
> had not been successful
> and it would be good to understand whether to re-invent old issues.
> Toerless thiks that similar technology could at other times be successful.
> L2 TSN (IEEE) using detnet
> concept (used in limited campus scenarios) could be a good exercise
> ? use cases and business models are the difficult parts (for all new
> technologies/approaches)
> Colin asked how to fit to new proposals and Behcet answered to use this
> opportunity to discuss
> more.
> Hannu emphasized that 6G would be a new generation compared to 5G – THz
> technology as good
> example. We should look at use cases 5G is not able to do – very tricky
> thing!
> Alex mentioned a typical use case which is not deployed in 5G: V2X
> (neither network-based nor
> direct communication) - more 5G use cases (other than eMBB) may not be
> deployed in 5G but only
> with 6G (as with other specifications in 3GPP never deployed).
>
> Hannu expects that in 6G the same services may be deployed, but in a
> simpler manner.
> Dirk agreed – also more sustainable methods could help deployment. FMC is
> another example
> already standardized for 3G but coming actually with 5G now.
> Alex asked whether people active in 3GPP could confirm that 6G has already
> been discussed before?
> Tim said that 3GP does not yt speak of 6G specifically but NGMN (Next
> Generation Mobile Networks
> association) has started to talk on this (WP#2).
> The chairs thanked all participants for joining and contributing to good
> discussion to be continued on
> the list and on future side meetings.
>