IMS, 3GPP and IETF: A standardization complexity

By Tsahi Levent-Levi

How do we get those specifications for IMS? In a complex way.

It started off as a set if requirements for a Next Generation Network (NGN). The 3GPP wanted an all-IP network for its mobile infrastructure, calling it IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem). As there’s no need to reinvent the wheel, the 3GPP decided to select an existing standard to do the work, and SIP was there – all young and fresh. But SIP is an RFC. It is handled and standardized by the IETF. This need not be changed.

So what does an organization like the 3GPP does at this point in time? Use the IETF as a subcontractor.

Have you ever worked with a subcontractor? I have never heard of anyone who liked the experience… you provide requirements for a rocket to space, and you get a fire cracker. You want a match, and you get a rocket instead. Time is not time, effort estimations are far from true (sounds like regular development, but it is always harder with a subcontractor).

So we have the 3GPP providing the requirements, while the development of new RFCs (=standards for IMS) done by the IETF, including modifications to RFCs when needed.

The result?

• We have a whole lot of RFCs coming from the IETF. Some colliding each other, others solving the same problems, but a bit differently.
• We have a bunch of 3GPP specifications, which point to RFCs (and a lot of drafts!) that are used by the 3GPP’s IMS network – in a way, a selection of the RFCs that are needed.
• But then, it is not always understood which features from the IETF, or the 3GPP you really need to build an application. And as usual, I haven’t covered GSMA, GCF, OMTP and other organizations.

We at the IMTC IMS AG are actually facing these issue each day. We are currently unraveling the set of specifications required for the implementation and interoperability of the Video Sharing service that is gaining momentum.

Technorati Tags: IMS, IETF, SIP, SigComp, 3GPP, Standardization, Tsahi Levent-Levi

Beginner’s Guide to 3G-324M MONA

By Oren Libis

MONA is a call setup time reduction technique used in 3G-324M. In the past several weeks I have noticed that a lot of handset developers and operators out there – not members of the IMTC, are a bit confused at what MONA is and how it really works.

The 3G-324M Activity Group in the IMTC is working hard in the past year on MONA. We’re doing interoperability testing whenever we can and we are going to meet again during October 8-12 for a face-to-face interoperability event with MONA as one of the main items.

What is MONA?

MONA is a call setup time reduction specification for 3G-324M. It is a set of 3 different techniques: MPC, SPC and ACP. I won’t go into the technical aspects of each, but it is important to understand the following points:

1. Each of these techniques alone can reduce call setup time to below 1 second.
2. Each of these techniques has its advantages and disadvantages – this is why MONA specifies three different techniques and not only one.

MONA Classes

3G-324M MONA specifies in addition to these 3 techniques, 3 different classes. 3G-324M products need to support only one of these classes. Each class indicates which of the 3 techniques (MPC, SPC and ACP) need to be implemented:

• Class 1, which requires MPC, SPC and ACP
• Class 2, which requires MPC and ACP
• Class 3, which requires SPC and ACP

The different MONA classes are interoperable with each other. For example, if two handsets support MONA, one supporting class 1 and the other supporting class 2, the call that will be established will either end up using MPC or ACP; if one supports class 2 and the other supports class 3, the call will simply use ACP.

What does is mean to you?

• If you are a developer, you should choose to develop the class that makes the most sense to you in terms of resources, footprint, memory and time to market.
• If you are a mobile operator, you should not force vendors to support a specific class – let your vendors choose their own class – in the end result, you will still get below 1 second of call setup time and you will be giving the vendors some flexibility.

Technorati Tags: 3G-324M, MONA, IMTC, Interoperability, Oren Libis

Interoperability in the Real World, Part 2

By Oren Libis

Last time, I tried to explain my view on the GCF test cases. As these are test cases that you need to pass before deploying your product (by going to GCF test labs), no matter how farfetched they are, you need to handle them. But there are another important interoperability issues that the GCF doesn’t handle. These are the real deployments out there today.

There are a large and growing number of 3G handsets out there and they are coming from several handset vendors. Each one has its own behavior and quirks. You’d be amazed how much effort it takes when you develop a 3G-324M stack to handle all of these quirks and how much you need to invest on the codec level and application level to get things done right.

Difference in behavior

This difference in behavior happens due to the complexity and richness of 3G-324M. Granted – it does only a video call, in a straightforward enough scenario, but the amount of options that this single scenario has is almost unlimited:

• It supports multiple types of codecs each with its own set of configurable parameters
• There are H.245 messages flowing
• Media quality needs to be handled differently by the various media systems out there
• Different developers have implemented 3G-324M, each one understanding the standard in his own way

Server side equipment

There are also servers on the network. These most of the time are using circuit switched networks in front of the handsets, where they are running 3G-324M, but they are also using IP based standards such as H.323 and SIP on the network side, when interacting with media servers for example. They have a different kind of behavior than handsets and they have a different decision making processes designed into them, bringing in more interoperability issues to bear.

What do you do?

The most important suggestion I can give developers of 3G-324M products is to do the GCF test cases that they must in order to get validated, but to focus and invest a lot on the handsets and servers interoperability. Try to get your hands on as much information as possible during your development regarding the differences in behavior of the handsets and servers and make sure you test against as many handsets as possible before you try to deploy your product through an operator.

Technorati Tags: 3G-324M, WCDMA, Interoperability, GCF, Oren Libis

Interoperability in the Real World

By Oren Libis

Managing interoperability for 3G-324M is not easy if you are a handset developer. There’s a lot to be done and some of it doesn’t always make sense.

What happens when a handset manufacturer finish developing and testing his 3G handset and wants to go sell it through an operator?

This seems like a straightforward enough process: you take the handset, you make sure you test it properly in your labs with a professional QA team and you’re done. That may be the case for things long supported by 3G handsets, such as audio calls over GSM or sending SMS messages, but for 3G-324M this is usually a bit more complex.

3G-324M testing has several different test phases: there are the IMTC, which does interoperability events – and publishes test cases, you have the GCF test labs, which validate handsets using a subset of the IMTC test cases, and then you have handsets and servers that are already deployed.

I have been working for a long time now with handset manufacturers and I have come to the conclusion that sometimes the focus is on the wrong kind of tests.

It might take a bit of time, so let me start by focusing on the GCF.

Take the GCF selected test cases for example. Since most of them are important when you validate your handset – they are all mandatory. But from analyzing them closely you can easily split them up into 3 distinct groups:

1. Important test cases
2. “Nice to have” test cases
3. Unnecessary test cases

I’ll give an example of each. By the way, as the GCF test cases are simply references to the IMTC, you can find all of these test cases here, separated into two distinct documents: interoperability and compliance.

Important test case
An example of an important test case is test case 54. It deals with master slave conflicts – a situation that is common when you have a call between two handsets from different vendors. A few years ago, a lot of handsets on the market and those developed by IMTC companies were unable to pass this test case. As this one deals with a plausible and common scenario, it is important to test it.

“Nice to have” test case
A “Nice to have” test case is test case 47. It checks to see if a handset is capable of accepting a change in media transmission rate because the other terminal/server requested him to do so. I have never quite seen this kind of a scenario happen in real life (it might, I just never saw it). You can take my word for it that this procedure is not that necessary and effective when video is presented on a small screen like the one used in 3G handsets. So this is a “nice to have” test case in my view – it’s a good enough feature, but the problem it comes to fix is just not there most of the time.

Unnecessary test case
An unnecessary test case is test case 45 (and 45u). In this test case, you need to respond to a RequestMultiplexEntry message – either by acknowledging it and sending the entry’s information or rejecting it. If someone is sending it to you, it means that he is already in a lot of trouble, as he didn’t remember what you told him (there are only 16 entries, so this must make him a senile). Let’s assume you reject it – this makes him unable to do a thing about it but drop the call. So we have a test case where the one you are working against is faulty/senile – you choose, and you can decide you don’t support this feature, hence causing a disconnection (and you are still validated by the GCF!). I have never seen a real handset acting in this kind of a way when the terminal he was working against was doing his part of the job. This means that developers need to handle this test case (and a few others similar to it) although their handsets will never actually be in this scenario.

Distinguishing between the different test cases is not easy and requires some knowledge in 3G-324M and in what different products, both handsets and server, are doing. At the IMTC’s 3G-324M Activity Group each company gets to work against a large variety of companies and products with the actual QA and development teams of these companies. This provides important information that can assist any handset vendor to pass his interoperability tests once he gets to that point.

Technorati Tags: 3G-324M, WCDMA, Interoperability, IMTC, GCF, Oren Libis

Hosting an Interoperability Event

By Oren Libis

It is now final. My company will be hosting the next face-to-face interoperability event for the 3G-324M activity group on October 8-12, 2007. It has been a bit over a year since we hosted our last event and it seems like I am getting the hang of it.

As we are planning our next event, there is this shopping list of issues that we will be taking into consideration:

• Location
  Need to find a big enough place to accommodate the group. A table for each company, with some space between them.
• 3G coverage
  We have to make sure that there is good 3G coverage in the location of the event and that it can hold a capacity of 10 or more video calls simultaneously.
• ISDN lines
  BRI and PRI. There are those that don’t have direct access to the 3G network, or those companies that would like to test their gateways, so we need to provide ISDN access as well.
• Connectivity of 3G and ISDN
  Now that there are two separate networks (3G and ISDN), we must check that you can call from one to the other and vice versa.
• Wireless LAN
  Everyone wants to use the internet during this week. Might as well provide good access to it.
• Lunch
  The army walks on his stomach and engineers can’t think without sugar. We have to make arrangements for lunch each day – in different restaurants, with English menus.
• Social event
  We’re hosting the event, so we need to give people some good time. Last year it was Jerusalem – this time it is still open. Any suggestions?

There are additional issues such as banners for the event, visa invitations, and restaurants for the evenings...

This event is definitely going to be around MONA call setup time, H.264 video codec and AMR-WB speech codec again, but I have a pretty good feeling that these should go even better than the last time for our group. I can’t wait to meet all of the guys here in Israel!

Technorati Tags: 3G-324M, Interoperability, MONA, RADVISION, Oren Libis