Interoperability
14
We always need to give vendors
time to implement the standards.
For Release 15 it’s maybe too early
in September
www.criticalcomms.com July 2019
Ludwig says we might see implementations of Release
15 MCX functionality in time for next year’s Plugtest. “We
always need to give vendors time to implement the standards.
For Release 15 it’s maybe too early in September. There’s
very high demand from the user side and also now from
the vendor side to test interworking between MCPTT and
TETRA/P25, but the standards are not ready yet.”
According to a blog by Dean Prochaska, FirstNet’s senior
director of standards, which summarised the recent 3GPP
meetings in Newport Beach, California, the target end dates
for the completion of the work on MCPTT and MCData
interworking between LMR and 3GPP have been adjusted by
three months to reflect delays and, as a result, they are now
expected to be completed by September. Despite this delay,
according to Arora, ETSI is still seeking to test LMR/3GPP
interworking next year. He adds that 3GPP held an ad
hoc meeting on 17-19 July at ETSI’s HQ to complete the
interworking standards.
One of the complications here is the number of vendors
that could be involved in such testing (the number of possible
testing combinations increases exponentially with the number
of participants). While Ludwig says TCCA has yet to look
into the logistics of LMR/LTE interoperability testing, he
would like to see the creation of a European equivalent of
FirstNet’s testing laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.
The push for certification
As I mentioned in my previous article on this subject
(in our October 2018 issue), participation in the ETSI
MCX Plugtests isn’t the only activity that is occupying
the industry’s attention in this area. For both user
organisations and vendors, there needs to be some form
of MCX certification. “It gives vendors confidence that
their implementations are according to the standard,
they’re compliant and they’re interworking with other
implementations,” says TCCA’s Ludwig. “This in turn
gives the users confidence and tells them that they are not
buying a proprietary solution. This is very important at the
beginning of a technology’s lifecycle.”
Tony Gray, TCCA’s chief executive, adds that missioncritical
broadband needs to have the same or greater
level of interoperability certification as TETRA (which is
delivered via TCCA’s TETRA IOP programme), partly as
“the diversity of vendors and solutions and functions that are
now coming out of all the standards work that we’ve been so
successful in doing in 3GPP gives greater opportunity but also
greater risk of things falling through the gaps”.
Business case needed
As discussed back in October, the preferred plan is for MCX
certification to be handled by the Global Certification
Forum (GCF), which currently handles certification for
consumer broadband devices. However, one sticking point
remains – the automated approach that GCF employs
requires the MCX test scripts to be supported by test and
measurement equipment and, according to Gray, “we haven’t
been successful to date in persuading any mainstream T&M
manufacturer to incorporate those test scripts”.
However, Lars Nielsen, general manager, GCF, says this
issue is exactly “why we should start with TCCA and its
members to define how mission-critical certification should
work, because if the test equipment suppliers see that
certification is coming there will be more interest from
them to provide solutions”.
Ludwig says he has “spoken to some test and measurement
equipment vendors already and their approach is always
‘we need to have a business case for whatever tests we
implement’. I don’t know if they don’t see the business case
for mission-critical tests or if they expect that we present the
business case to them – it’s difficult and it’s also new for us
because we have not been in this business before.”
Chris Hogg, programme manager at GCF, says: “If we
can bring people together in conjunction with TCCA in
a series of web conferences where we can start to get the
customers for certification, the mission-critical operators and
the manufacturers involved and get them to work together to
define the scope of certification then we would be in a better
position because then the vendor T&M industry will see that
there’s something happening.”
Nielsen adds: “I expect governments want to be involved in
the decision of which labs verify the compliance of missioncritical
devices for their country’s law enforcement and
emergency response forces.”
It is worth noting here that the GCF has created a
membership category specifically for mission-critical operators
and Nielsen says he is keen for the work to define the MCX
certification regime to begin as quickly as possible. While he
believes there could be up to 10 members in that category
within the next two years, he highlights the way in which the
mission-critical communications industry moves slower than
its consumer counterpart, partly due to the way it is driven by
government procurements.
A twin-pronged approach
In the meantime, TCCA is pursuing two other initiatives.
“We’re trying to catalyse a pre-certification programme and
ETSI’s MCX
Plugtests series
is working to
identify potential
issues in the
mission-critical
standards
developed
by 3GPP that
could affect
interoperability
/www.criticalcomms.com