Ok, welcome everyone. Good afternoon to this session about standards,
testing and certification.
Um, We have 2 speakers on the stage,
Fidel and Chris, and we have 2 speakers online, Magnus and Sara.
Ah we can now see you as well.
Hope you can see us. Good. My name is Ludwig.
I am chairman of the TCCA technical forum and I have the honour to moderate this panel.
If you have any questions, the ones in the room, you can please raise your hands.
The ones online, I guess you can write us a text message,
and we will, we will be notified if there is any question or comment from the
online audience.
Uh, let's have a quick introductory round, so I will ask everyone to briefly
introduce themselves.
So Fidel, can you please start? Yeah, thank you,
thank you, uh, uh, hello.
So my name is Fidel Liberal. I'm professor at the University of the Basque
Country here in Spain, and I'm here as coordinator of the MCS testing project which is
focused on, on conformal testing, and I'm also very involved also in some other.
Uh, standard rate activities like 3B itself but also uh serving as technical expert in
the MCX practise hosted by Vet.
OK, thank you, Chris, please.
Thanks, Harold. Uh, uh, good afternoon everyone.
My name's Chris Hogg.
Uh, I'm with Global Certification Forum, that's our GCF for short.
Uh, GCF is the mobile industry's certification for mobile devices,
and I've been working very closely with with both Harold and Fidel and and the other
panellists here to bring mission critical certification for devices.
Thank you. Thank you.
Then Magnus, can you please introduce yourself.
Yes, thanks. Hello everyone.
Uh, yeah, my name is More, uh, working as a product manager at the Exon for Asian credit
applications. Uh, my, I have been working here in the on the
20 years, a bit more, uh, and maybe the most, uh, uh,
important particular related to this is that, uh, I saw,
uh, I was here to main delegate that it's a 6 of it.
Mhm. Here I'm happy to discuss the standardisation
and the importance of that.
Audio issues you, you, you have been interrupted a little bit,
but I think we, we got most of what you said, yes, so I think the last part was that you were,
uh, in, in SA 6 in the 3 GPP SA6 working group for standardisation.
Participate. Thank you.
Uh, Sara, can you please introduce yourself?
Thanks. So, uh, hi everyone, this is Soav Aurora.
I'm uh working for HC as a technical project manager.
Uh, I'm part of the team centre of Testing and interoperability, and uh,
we are, uh, organising the MCXpl test.
OK, OK, thank you.
I would like to organise this panel into three parts as the title gives you standards testing
and certification, and we will try to address standards testing and certification one after
the other. Let's start with the standards.
Sara you from ET standardisation organisations, I think everyone here is already convinced that
standards are the way to go.
So I think nobody wants to do proprietary solutions, but can you remind us just briefly
in one or two sentences why do we need standards or why should we use standards?
So let's talk about the real world scenario.
The mobile phones work all around the world.
There is interoperability. We don't need to update a software or a
hardware test standards, and there is a wide choice of compatible equipment when there is
standardisation, less dependency on one vendor.
And lower prices and higher quality for industry it's a wider market and bigger volumes,
and always developing a new technology is very expensive, so let's develop together.
So as I said, everyone is convinced to use standards, but the standards are basically
paper. You have a lot of text on papers, many hundreds
of thousands of pages.
So Magnus, what what does someone from industry from a vendor need to do with the
standard? Yes, and let me give
my, my view here or the so say from a network, an application,
a vendor perspective of the standard here, and I just like to start to iterate what Sarav said
here that there's no doubt about how important the standardisation work has been for the
mobile broadband success for consumer markets. So that's no,
no, no question about that.
Um, and uh for created communication here, there, there are,
of course, an additional set of requirements, uh, uh,
like, uh, related to reliability, robustness and security and so on.
And From a vendor perspective, it's really important that we,
we can, uh, uh, use the standards in a way and, and get the standards to work from an end to
end perspective, all the way from the UE through the radio access network,
from the core network, the SIPlayer, and also the application.
So the end to end aspect is, is really the, the important, uh,
part of this here.
Um, and, um.
Uh, just like to give you some, uh, example of, of, of,
uh, and, and, and how we as a network under here have seen this in this conversation work
in, in a 3DPP.
That, um, the, the, the, uh, all the way, if I go the other way around from the application,
one important part is, of course, how to request the needed resources,
how to get the right quality service to the QCIs in the,
in the run and the, and the packet core and and and use preemptions capability,
if that is allowed and, and uh needed sort of say, uh.
Uh, just to give an example here when it comes to, to,
um, critical communication, if there are a lot of users moving from one area
to another. And, and uh doing a a handover to a new cell,
if you have a bus of public safety users going into a new cell,
it's a really difficult situation to handle the QSpect of that,
and that's why the standard is really, really important to get the reliable
and deterministic behaviour for the end user perspective.
Another part is of course congestion inburg that is always a situation that needs
to be handled when there are lack of resources and, and,
and the standard provides the, the, the, the choice of using unicost and multi-cost
aspect and for congestion.
Multico is the, the, the solution for that. And, and that is typically not that used that
much in commercial networks for the consumer market, but in public safety,
uh, public safety mission critical networks, it's, it's really,
uh, a must for certain critical situation when there is congestion.
And here we have seen that, we already have live networks in,
in that uh uh with using EMBMS for critical communication.
Um, another part which is maybe a bit difficult in, in,
um, 3PP LTE and 5G networks is, uh, uh, how to,
to, to manage the, the resources and in, in case of congestion,
how to queue up resource requests and so on.
That's, that's, uh, one part that is uh uh uh something that Uh,
needs to be managed by the application, but, but still it,
it, uh, puts a lot of requirements all the way down to the,
the radio access.
Um, so, so, but I think that most of these are, are already in place.
Uh, uh, there are some areas where I still see that, well,
the standard is in some cases in place, but more testing is required,
uh, and also, uh, related to equipment, for example, device to device communication.
is an area that has been progressing a little bit slow.
Uh, there's still ongoing work on, on mission critical gateway use,
which is important for certain segments.
Uh, that's an area that there are still ongoing sanitation work that we,
we are looking at. So I think I, I, uh, that's,
uh, sort of say why I just a couple of more words about the,
the, the value, um, that I see from, um, uh, sort of say,
uh, that the standard works from uh uh provides the, the,
the standardisation provides.
Uh, of course, the multitude of devices and clients is,
is maybe the most obvious, uh, and we see that it's just increasing the The,
the speed of uh new devices and so on.
Uh, but there are also other aspects, uh, and uh I'd like,
uh, the, the, um, uh, mentioned the interwork and interconnect,
which is also very much related to the standardisation.
And now, to, to interconnect different networks is important but there increase,
the number of networks increase.
But also in working with legacy network is a very important part when it comes
to both the ability to communicate between the legacy and new networks,
but also to facilitate the transition.
Uh there are very large organisation that would use this communication that will Um,
uh, sort of say do it stepwise and certain part of the organisation will go to new technology
and now will remain because they are using features that takes longer time to,
to, to transfer to, to new technologies.
Uh, so, so having interwork and interconnect is an area that I see,
uh, will be a lot of focus on, uh, the, the next coming years
here. Uh, here we have already.
We've seen that, yeah, the work in, in the standard about the interface to this
interworking function, the IWF and here we now have done the first uh tests on,
on, uh, on IWF here, uh, together with the TA partner.
That's, that's an important step in that direction as I see it.
And another aspect of, of, of the value is to me that standardisation also
is a good, uh, uh, so say it encouraged the innovation and further development work
because it sets the say the, the, the base of what it needs to provide and,
and if you to really get a good solution.
Uh, we need to, to, um, uh, stretch and, and, uh, have,
uh, uh, uh, um, uh, customers specific functions on top of that.
So that's really, uh, a value as well of this conversation.
It was quite a long introduction.
Uh, I just want to ask if there are any questions from from the audience,
uh, or any comments from the audience.
Please can we have a microphone please?
because then the online people can hear you.
Good. Microphone is coming.
OK, thank you. Uh, so do you not see any negative aspects of
standardisation like that it is, uh, delaying time to market,
uh, say, uh, unifying solutions to cater for many
different options. Uh, there's always the challenge of whether you
should use should shell or may in the standard.
So any, any thoughts on that?
I think we had a panel this morning about this question should you wait for the standard or
should you use proprietary solutions? And as I said with my introduction,
I think nobody really wants proprietary solutions.
So people agreed that even if the standard takes some time to do,
it's worth doing a standard.
Um, it has benefits for both sides for, for the users because they can say what they will get
and for the industry, but I don't know, maybe Magnus, you can,
you can tell us, uh, is Ericsson doing any proprietary implementations.
Well, uh, I think that there are always proprietary parts as well here,
but I, and, and, and, but I just want to, to, as you said here,
there are hundreds of thousands of pages in the standard, and I think it's as always,
in all kinds of standardisation work, a step-wise approach is always a good way here.
So what parts are most important, what use cases do we need to fulfil first?
Uh, those should be focused on and, and, and, uh, solve the many cases.
Then there are use cases that are maybe, uh, delayed or taking a longer time in the
standardisation and in the development work.
uh, those might come later. They have a complete solution in,
in one go, so to say, is, um, um, it's difficult.
It's an agile approach.
Another question was maybe uh I could just say something.
I mean, I, I spent sort of 10
years at the, you know, first half of my career working in standards right and I essentially is
a negotiation, so you know it is really about the industry and all the stakeholders coming
together. In order to kind of collectively work out what
everybody wants and what everybody needs, um, so it,
it is a process, uh, it does take time, but I think at the end of,
at the end of the day what you get is better because you get something that is what people
want, what the, what the industry wants, um, and it is a bigger,
you're effectively creating a bigger market anyway, you're building confidence that you can,
And you know, have the confidence to to buy and procure those networks,
those devices that that meet the standards, so yeah, OK,
thanks. OK, yeah, thank you.
Let's move on to testing.
This was also a comment this morning from Adrian grey,
the CTO from Etsy. He said having a standard written is only the
first step because you also need a mature standard, so you need to be sure that you can
implement the standard and the standard works.
I think one way to prove this is the tests.
Sara, can you please tell us what what the tests are doing?
So blood tests are like an interoperability testing events for,
for the vendors. So any vendor who is implementing a 3GPP
standard for mission critical communication can participate in this event.
They can test with each other and then they can report the observations on the technical
specifications recently developed by 3GPP.
So some of the examples I can give you that from every practise which we are running,
we get, we normally have 10 to 20 observations on the technical specifications.
Sometimes it requires changes in the technical spec.
Or sometimes we just need a clarification on the implementation for the standards and as you
know that we are running every year MCXpl test event.
We started this blood test in 2017.
There were around 19 vendors who participated in the event.
We focused on 3 GPP 13.
And we achieved around 85% success rate.
We had at that time 47 test cases developed, and we prepared a technical a test
specification for interoperability in HC, so it's TS 103564,
and then slowly we moved to, so we named this event as an MCPTTA test.
We, we were maybe a bit nice.
We named it as MCBTT, and then we had a second event called this MCPTT
blood test which was done in Texas A&M University in a disaster.
It's called the Disaster City where the first responders are training and we achieved the 92%
success rate.
It was based on 3GPP release 14, and we already saw that in the first blood test we had 19
vendors, and then in the second blood test we had 31 vendors and from the test cases point of
view we went from 47 to 100, but still this blood test was focused on MCPTT.
And in the third event we moved to MCX. We included MC data and
MC video. Uh, it, there were already more than 35 vendors
who participated in the third blood test. It was completely a remote event.
Then we had another event in COO.
We, we had a partnership with Alico, and we had this event on 3GPPD
15 where vendors brought even the E Node Bs and the UVs,
and they did end to end testing.
We, we got 95% success rate.
Now currently there is a practise which is taking place from next week.
Uh, we are focusing on 3 GPP release 16.
And as Magnus said, that interworking is something really important.
We need to transition from from legacy, and we need to have the legacy.
We need to see the interworking with MCX application servers and the legacy system.
So in the next practise test, which is going to take place from 8 to 19th November,
we have an interworking function stream.
Uh, based on 3 GPP standards of interworking function as well as the it,
its standards, uh, we are also, uh, uh, moving to, to FRMCSpl test.
So we are, uh, we already had one event in June, uh, where we tested use cases for
railways and, and we are planning to, to, uh, have a series of events,
uh. Um, in, in the future, uh, the, the most
important objective of these events are to, to find any issues
seen in the, in the 3GPP technical specification, any observations or any
clarification. We work with Fastnet, we provide them,
uh, all the observa every, in every practise, we provide them observations which then are
discussed in 3 GPP working group CT1 and SA 6.
Uh, there, there is a proper process where we provide them all the observations.
We even sometimes attend if there is any clarification needed in these meetings,
and we have seen that we already received some of the fixes which were required in the
technical specifications.
Sometimes our understanding of the technical specification, when I say award means the blood
test vendors is different than the 3GPP, so we get the clarifications.
This is, this is turning out to be a very important process where where not
just standardisation, but the interoperability issues or any technical specification
issue which we, which we have seen is, is fixed.
And we hope that that these these events provide useful information to the
industry, and we have moved from 85% success rate to 95% success
rate, and we have seen the maturity of solutions now coming to the,
to the plot test and we are providing quite useful feedback to,
to 3GPP working groups.
How many windows are coming to this next week?
So we, we have close to 40 vendors.
OK, that's, that's quite a high number, yeah.
Um, We have already the 6th blood test including the FRMS for the rail industry,
the 7thpl test.
Uh, Fidel, you are one of the technical experts in the blood test.
Why, why do we need so many blood tests? I mean,
why cannot they come once tested and then they have tested it.
Why do they have to come again and again and test it?
OK, I think Magnuss pointed out already like this needs to be a gradual approach.
You cannot build from scratch a completely new complex ecosystem of MCX solutions,
uh, no matter how much effort you put there, no matter how many.
The developers you have there, there's a, it's a long process and even 3EP is still working,
so you need to keep the pace with them.
So we started following the very basic research in MCBTT back in in 20 2017 and now
every, every further practise we are dealing with some.
Additional features and additional capabilities now MCB and CBD of MCS IWF and more that will
come. So we are we in fact it's kinda hard to,
to keep this space because they are typically the maturity of solutions are a little bit
behind because you need some time from the release of the technical specification to some
working product. So I, I guess, yeah, it would be nice to have
one black test and, and just have everything in place, but I,
I, I believe and I hope that there is still a long road ahead,
and I, I really, uh, I will be really glad to, to keep on with the team for the following
black test to come. So OK, thank you.
Uh, any questions, any comments, anything from the online audience?
No, I know, no question, no, OK, no,
OK, uh, then we talked about the pluck test which are interoperability test
events, uh, Fidel you're also involved in developing a conformance tester.
Why, why, why don't, why, why can't we buy a conformance tester?
Well, I mean, uh, all the conformance testing process defined for by 3 BP and it's,
uh, let's say a widespread, uh, industry accepted mechanism is kinda long because you
need you start with the with the core specs. With the technical specification for MCPTT
MTCBDO, out of those round 5 within 3 EBP produces the so-called pros
technical specification.
There's a set of specification that define all the sequence,
uh, all the messages change that is needed, and then you need to turn this into a system
simulator and This certified by or validated by by GCF so that the the
certification programmes can start so I usually call this the perfect storm because 2 years or
3 years ago uh there there was an industry and us should demand to work this kind of equipment
but most of the.
Classical equipment vendor they were so busy with 5G and mission critical uh business or
niche market was not big enough, so that was the perfect storm and,
and, and somebody needed to put this uh a little bit we.
I, we were awarded with some funding from the US Department of Commerce and we were in charge
of trying to push this and making this a reality like having this conform Manchester
available as soon as possible and this as soon as possible means basically today uh
12 p.m.
Zulu time we are supposed to submit the needed test cases for to be.
Agreed for formal verification and that's the triggering point so that we can make this
certification programme possible along 2022 that's in our agenda and uh we think that will
be good for the whole industry and of course for the users because now there's some
uncertainty regarding the role of the practise, the role of,
of, of what a compliance matrix might look like in a tender or an RFP RFQ.
We, we, we, we will try to shed some light there and hopefully that will be something well
accepted by, by all the stakeholders.
OK, so to understand it right that the conformance tester is ready,
can be used now. Yeah, yeah, of course we are here in
conversions. You can come to both H 150.
We have there the the equipment where you can bring your MCS client on your MCS UE.
Well, we can give it a try. It's not easy because you need to configure
everything, but, uh, the technology is there.
The CVP has already produced the needed uh the code and,
and the technical specification.
So we have these building blocks and this is the starting point.
It's uh it's a process ongoing and but yeah, the technology is,
is already there and now it's, it's time for the certification programmes to start,
OK. So
certification before we before we come to certification, I just want to ask any questions.
One question, you, you're probably aware of that in we also tried to establish a
conformance tester a long while back with the challenge of first getting it running,
but we had the rotor and torts.
Device that actually were able to do a great part of it,
but one of the challenges that we found was the the uh continued um maintenance and how do
you see that happening in a, in a, in your conformance testing world.
I think we will see. I mean, we are lucky that we got fund from the
US list. They are funding 3 projects,
developing conformance testers, um, and the idea is that these are sustainable
developments, products which can then be used for forever,
for a longer time, but I don't know if we will support this.
I mean. There's already a road map not only for MCPTD
for MC data. This TF160 is already started working in MC
data, so we do have a roadmap to not only consider MCBDT evolution,
but also MC data evolution and MC video is, is a streamlined process,
so you need to be on all the stages. Some of them are already completed,
some of them are already are ongoing and are planned to,
to follow up and then of course this.
These 3 companies and consortia, they are pushing, they are pushing it and they are
committed to supporting this and this is part of the engagement with UCF.
You need to commit to support this and keep this in a commercial product and maintain and
support this in the long run, OK. But is this only the conformance tester in
itself, but and also the test script the the GT3 test scripts that needs to
both be maintained. As far as I understand, you have 25 right now,
but also it needs to evolve if you look at how many test cases we for instance have for
certification in Tetra. It's significantly more.
Both of these elements need to be there, and I assume that the funding you have doesn't
include that long term maintenance like in Tetra we've existed with the certification for
more than 20 years.
Yes, that will be a challenge, but to be seen.
Yeah, but is it, is it not the case though that I think,
I think what you're trying to say is is that your product becomes a commercial product,
uh, you then obviously get, because it is a commercial product,
that means you can then invest in it.
Uh, you know, same thing goes for everything else.
You're, um, you know, if you, once you get the market started,
then things should follow.
So I think yeah, yeah, maybe one comment here.
First of all, this number is just the ones to be formally verified which is the very minimum.
Now they are 45, the 45 in the work item from GCF are running,
so they have running implementation.
We just need to, to complete the.
The, the submission, the formal submission, the formal verification process,
this is on our agenda, so it takes time because you need to collect all the logs,
submit to to round 5 and have TF 160 check it uh on this consultation period.
But well, maybe another comment apart from. From the number,
so tier 160 has some resources, so that is funded by by FC3BP.
So they have some TCCN3 expert with a particular priority list so they are
responsible for not only MCX but also uh 5G, B2X, whatever.
So they do have some budget on budget out of 3 funds but also out of contribution by
uh this vendor uh companies and so on. So it's like a Public,
well, not public, but some kind of partnership when there's money from 3 BB itself and also
for for the vendors and that's where we are like we are supporting there and and the idea
is that all the three consortia and, and we, we are more than sure that some of the vendors are
already looking at and looking at this I mean the usual uh testing vendors,
uh, they are supporting also this this activity on the medium term,
OK. So we going along the value chain.
So we started with the standards, then we said somebody has to implement the standards,
then we need to verify that the standards are.
OK, and the products are OK with the blood tests.
Then for the conformance tests we can be sure that it's conforming compliance to the standard.
This is a formal testing or is it a testing and to come the last part,
the formal part will be the certification so that somebody can show that this is
conforming to the standard.
So one comment here, Harold, test devices are not flawless as well.
So having something tested will only show conformance insofar as the test is
complete in itself. Yes, and this is part of the process in round 5
that they are verifying the tests and also with GCF that they have processes to make sure that
the test tools are also OK implement yeah and and I,
I need to say that they are extremely tough. I mean,
the group of experts in the 160, they are really hard to discuss with because they.
I mean you need to justify any ambiguity or any you mentioned before about may so
shoot or whatever so they are st by the book, uh, and they,
they, they will chase you till the end of the world if there is some coma here or there that
is not fulfilling what they do, even when they have all the logs,
they take everything by hand, uh, like, OK, I have here the logs.
But I already TDCN 3 evaluated, but just in case there's some TTCN 3 error,
I check it against the pros, uh, tables just to check that even the TCN 3 is correct.
So it's, it's a very comprehensive process which provides trust on the,
on the whole process. So this is already in place.
I mean this is compared to Tetra. This is really a,
a good, uh, environment now because.
Many, many things which we did not have in Tetra are already in place.
That is, that is true.
I have some experience with ISDN where you also had some conformance testers,
and it was shown on a frequent basis that the TDZN script,
which was version 2, was not completely flawless.
Like when you have a standard, there are many, um.
Events that can happen out of sequence and if the tester doesn't handle a
a permissible event but not something that is within the scope of the of the test case in a
correct manner, you may get erroneous effects out of that.
OK, so I mean to my third attempt to ask Chris.
How, how, how, how can I now get the certificate that my product is
conformant and standard compliant? Well, so, so in GCF we are
working to create a certification for MCX devices.
Um, so that, that, that certification is going to be based upon.
Certifying the underlying device itself, this LTE device,
and then you have the MCX client that will be on top of that.
And what we're doing in GCF is we're defining, we've defined a scope of the features that we
would like to see in phase one, In terms of how you actually would then certify this,
what you would do is you would first of all, a manufacturer would have to join GCF,
so GCF is a not for profit organisation.
Uh, it's member based, uh, where the members come together and they define the scope of the
certification and the processes for certifying.
Um, But to certify you must, you must be a member um you then work with one of our test
industry members, so we have a network of I think roughly 30 recognised
test organisations. So these are the test labs and the field trial
organisations who, who will work with the manufacturers to.
Look at the certification criteria, look at what your device supports,
and then develop a test plan and execute it for you, um,
help you fill in the paperwork, help you, um, help you get your certification.
Uh, but essentially the certification itself is built upon two,
there's actually 3 types of tests, but there's two main ones.
Uh, there's the conformance testing that that Fidel has mentioned,
which is testing against a simulated network and a simulated mission
critical push to talk server. Um, and there is um live network
field trials where The devices are driven, driven around a number of different networks
with different infrastructure vendors in them, uh, so,
the idea being that the two types of tests are complementary to each other,
so, uh, a GCF certified product, it's not only, it's not only,
If you like, assessed for compliance in the lab, it is actually,
it has actually been used in the real world, um, and that's I mean this is,
this is a process that has existed in the mobile industry since 1999.
Um, there are, it's pretty much the the membership of GCF is is the
entire mobile industry of the world pretty much.
Uh, it's, it's, it's all the big brand names and the.
Uh, in the manufacturer side, the chip set side, the uh the the the test industry,
both in terms of the test tools and and the the test houses,
um, and, you know, the network side, it's the, it's the big network groups from United States,
Europe, Asia, Middle East, um, so.
I think what we're trying to do here is is to to use something which is already in place,
um, and you know and and and bring the benefits of GCF certification to the mission critical
world. OK, thank you.
Any questions?
Any comments? No.
The gentleman in the last row, thank you.
So how is Fidel's boxes and software?
Linking into the GCF certification.
OK, I knew you'd ask a question.
Um, yes, yeah, thanks, Shey. Um, yes, so basically what would happen is,
um, um, we have an open process for anybody who is a member of GCF,
um, who is the test industry or the observer members of GCF,
we have essentially three different categories, observers, operators and manufacturers,
um. The test industry can test tool manufacturers
can bring their product into GCF and declare it, uh, so,
uh, you know, the next, we're expecting that will happen,
happen in the near future where basically there's a declaration that you have to make
that says that, uh, you know, this this test tool is commercially available.
Uh, that you have and you have this is the hardware and software that it uses that you've
got, uh, you know, the, the test tool vendor has, you know,
appropriate, uh, maintenance contracts or maintenance in place as well so that,
in other words, so that the test houses can then have confidence that this,
that they can buy this product or they can have this product in their labs.
And then it can, then it can be be used.
There is actually a a further process before it is actually used in certification though
because we then go through what's called the validation process where the essentially the
test tool is validated uh again to make sure that it actually works for
the particular test cases. um.
Because it's it's clearly important before you actually have certification to make sure that
you have the test equipment available in test houses and that you know that it works.
Um, so we try to make sure that all these bits are, all these pieces of the puzzle are are
there before certification begins. OK.
Does that answer your question? Yeah.
But if I also and I may be wrong, but I also think that in order to have a product
certified by you, it needs to go through two test uh boxes,
is that right? Ah, no, no, I think what the test
tool has to typically be tested against two UEs, to user
equipment, right, so 22 devices, right, so it gives the correct so that they can be
confident it's going to give the correct pass verdict.
OK, um, so I was I was wrong.
So if Fidel has his test tester.
That is, and it gets validated and it gets through, then that is enough for you to follow
your GCF uh processes to issue a certificate.
Um, we have to, we have to make sure that a certain number of the test cases,
so there, there's, there's basically about like 50 or 60 conformance test cases,
and a number of the members of GCF have agreed that a particular set of them are so-called
priority one ones, which means that we wait until I think is it 60% or 80%,
I think 60% or 80% of these test cases have been validated on a commercially available test
platform. At that point we can then activate the feature
and certification, which means that any device that goes through GCF certification,
if it supports mission critical push to talk, it must have run the test
cases using one of the commercially available test platforms.
When you say commercially available test platforms, yes,
what is that different to what Fidel is bringing?
It's, I do so I mean Fidel needs to sell his stuff to a test house to one of your
30 test houses, and at least 2 of them needs to install it.
No, 2222 UEs then
it's and then it kicks out a certification automatically.
Then then anybody who's got an MCX device can come and get
it, can go and get it come to John GCF, go through the certification process,
and so on. OK, thank you. Thanks.
Thank you. Come and talk afterwards we have 2 minutes left
and the last 2 minutes I would like to use to ask all of the panellists just a short
statement. What do you think it's needed in addition to
what we already have to make this testing certification really complete.
So maybe I start with.
Do you see anything we need to work in the future?
I, I think, uh, as you know that we are, we are uh trying to get uh server size test cases
to, to complete the certification of the the MCX ecosystem.
So we, we talk a lot about the devices, UEs clients.
But we also need to get certification of the MCX application servers.
So this is something which we are basing and as you know that we are at HC we are trying to,
to, to see if we can develop these test cases uh for,
for the GCF certification.
Please switch on my microphone. Yeah.
If you have server side test cases, can we put this on your testing platform as well?
Yeah, at the end, I mean, the streamline process is the same.
You will have first you need the server to server interface evaluation or the server
interface, and then that will be turned into 3 code and then you need to adapt your.
Your tester to to the test engine to support these test cases typically I mean this is
extremely easier than when we are starting from scratch because all the adapters stable
functions, cryptography functions and so on are already in place from the client side so it's
nothing. There's nothing new, of course there are
changes there. I mean you need to fix things there,
but we foresee that the, the, let's say development phase will be extremely faster once
the server, uh, test cases are available rather than when the client that we started from
scratch. OK, another tough question for you.
If we have server side tests and implemented, can we certify this in TCF?
Well, OK, so we're traditionally a device certification,
uh, group that's what the heritage is, um, you know, having said that,
there there are other activities in GCF that I've been looking in the very recent past at um
at issues like that that are not really traditional device certification.
We, we, we did have a a group that's uh looking at, you know,
mobile edge computing.
Uh, you know, and you know, certification in relation to that.
So I think GCF is definitely open to, uh, to, to the possibility.
Um, but if I could just finish by saying my, um, you asked,
you originally asked the question about, you know, what do we need?
Yeah, I think we need to have actual deployments, right?
We need to have deployments and devices, um, and you know,
part of the reason is that uh.
Part of part of certification test is also the the the field trials and and and a live network
or or as close to a live network as you can get, uh, and you know.
The key aspect in building confidence would be to have a deployment and for them to go through.
Uh, the process and, and, and what can we learn from that process to,
to, you know, really make sure that certification works and other deployments can
rely on the performance testing, field deployments and then server side testing by
Magnus, any, any view from a from a
vendor is anything missing from your point of view.
Given that we, we, we have 2 minutes left, I can
just uh agree on, on what's more, more vendors for servers,
but also for the, the network, the both the radio, the core and the IMS part as well uh
would uh benefit from uh testing the, the, uh the servers to
say. Thank you and thank you everyone for speaking.
Thank you everyone for listening and have a nice show and other
panels. Thank you. Thanks.
Thank you. Thank you.