RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
Phil, your comment looks good for me and I am
considering how I can apply ARID (or any new
values) for the 802.16 as well. I also hope 802.21
will propose a common set of these operations
effectively
Thanks.
- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Phillip Barber
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:26 AM
> To: stds-802-21@ieee.org; stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
>
> In 16e, we know that we are going to have to expand the
> NBR-ADV beacon to
> include other information elements that are currently not
> required to meet a
> single operator, single network concept--16e's current
> mandate. As we look
> at multiple 16e networks, and even multiple non-16e 802 and
> other networks
> interacting, going forward we are going to have to do some
> additions to
> NBR-ADV beacon (Operator ID anyone?) in 16e. We are looking to 21 to
> develop a common set of information elements needed for
> broadcast in the
> beacon to facilitate these activities.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sungjin Lee" <steve.lee@samsung.com>
> To: "'S. Daniel Park'" <soohong.park@samsung.com>; "'McCann, Stephen'"
> <stephen.mccann@ROKE.CO.UK>; "'stds-802-21'" <stds-802-21@IEEE.ORG>
> Cc: <ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM>; "'Pyungsoo Kim'" <kimps@samsung.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:47 PM
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
>
> > Hi Daniel, Stephen and all HO guys
> >
> > In my understanding, that kind of issue (e.g. ARID into
> beacon) is fit to
> be
> > discussed within 802.21.
> > The ARID formant, recommended usage examples and scenarios
> also could be
> > discussed and then
> > put into the documentation released as 802.21 spec. based
> on agreement
> > between 802.21 attendees.
> >
> > However, the specific way to provide that ARID information
> over the air
> > interface should be discussed within each WG.
> > In fact, It sould be discussed within 802.11 WG to propose
> the changed
> > Beacon frame structure including ARID and
> > within 802.16 to propose the changed DL-MAP or NBR-ADV
> message including
> > ARID.
> >
> > Let me know if I misunderstanding something from the
> Stephen's comments
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Sungjin Lee
> > =====================================
> > Global Standards & Research Team
> > Telecommunication R&D Center
> > SAMSUNG Electronics
> >
> > TEL : +82 31 279 5248
> > MOBILE : +82 16 301 6603
> > E-mail : steve.lee@samsung.com
> > ======================================
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> S. Daniel Park
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:38 AM
> > To: 'McCann, Stephen'; 'stds-802-21'
> > Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'S. Daniel Park'; 'Pyungsoo Kim'
> > Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
> >
> > Stephen, thanks your kindly comments on this work.
> >
> > I agree what you said, this solution can be applied for
> several wireless
> > environments and I really hope it will be expanded to
> related WG as you
> > stated 802.11 WIEN SG.
> >
> > I am deeply considering what approach is more general as 802.21 guys
> > indicated and also waiting for various comments/feedbacks
> on this work.
> >
> > > However, the way that this information is communicated,
> be that over a
> > > 802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be technology
> specific and
> > > should really be discussed within the WG in charge of
> standardising
> > > that technology.
> >
> > Regarding this comment, could you explain it more detail ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> > - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: McCann, Stephen [mailto:stephen.mccann@roke.co.uk]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:36 AM
> > > To: 'S. Daniel Park'; 'stds-802-21'
> > > Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM
> > > Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
> > >
> > >
> > > Daniel,
> > > This is a very interesting issue, and I think it may be
> > > applicable to more than one WG.
> > >
> > > The information that you would want to make available at
> the APs (e.g.
> > > the ARID) is something that would seem to fit within the scope of
> > > 802.21, where the benefits of having a generic identifier
> that can be
> > > used over different technologies to support this L2/L3 handover
> > > distinction and what format this information should take can be
> > > discussed.
> > >
> > > However, the way that this information is communicated,
> be that over a
> > > 802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be technology
> specific and
> > > should really be discussed within the WG in charge of
> standardising
> > > that technology.
> > >
> > > Within 802.11 this issue would be welcome within 802.11 WIEN SG.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: S. Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@SAMSUNG.COM]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:50 AM
> > > > To: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'stds-802-21'
> > > > Cc: 'S. Daniel Park'
> > > > Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi all
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At the previous meeting on March, I presented one issue
> which dealt
> > > > with unclear handover indication between L2 and L3 and
> this solution
> > > > defined a new ARID (Access Router ID) into the beacon
> to distinguish
> > > > L2 handover from L3 handover. If different ARID, it means subnet
> > > > change, then L3 handover is performed.
> > > >
> > > > The subject was as below:
> > > > Awareness of the handover to be distinguished from a L2 or L3.
> > > >
> > > > I remember that chair and some guys required more
> general solution
> > > > to solve this problem in the 802.11 and they worried
> about the newly
> > > > defined value into the current 802.11 beacon, however I am still
> > > > wondering how we can solve this ambiguous operation
> without 802.11
> > > > spec. extension like ARID or similar value.
> > > >
> > > > So I am open to listen some comments/views on this issue.
> > > >
> > > > My major question is that
> > > > [1] Do I have to propose this solution to the 802.11 WG
> since this
> > > > problem is originated from the 802.11 spec. ?
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > [2] Is this 802.21 WG is right place to deat with this issue ?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> > > > - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk
> > >
> > > Registered Office: Roke Manor Research Ltd, Siemens
> House, Oldbury,
> > > Bracknell, Berkshire. RG12 8FZ
> > >
> > > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is
> > > confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be
> passed to any
> > > third party without permission. This communication is for
> information
> > > only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship.
> > >
> > >
> >
>