Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] Harmonization of
Itzik and all,
I strongly disagree with this approach. As far as impacting state machines,
I think you are dramatically overstating the effect. Indeed, I think it far
easier to implement RNG-RSP HO transaction optimization flags, specific for
each step of network re-entry, than to use some type of defined arbitrary
logical coding scheme where HO optimized profile 'a' looks like this, and
'b' looks like this. HO optimized profile sets require a different set of
procedures for each optimized profile, divergent and independent SDL models,
and you account for each different profile separately. Thus, if you add a
new profile, you have to add a new process. Messy and unecessary. HO
transaction optimization flags represent a simple modification to existing
HO SDL (i.e. If can skip SBC-REQ/RSP, skip it, Else process SBC-REQ/RSP).
And support of the HO optimization flags would by inference support ALL
optimized HO mechanisms that achieve optimization through minimizing network
re-entry handshaking, whether those optimized HO mechanisms are currently
defined or are to yet to be envisaged. Also, there is nothing in HO
transaction optimization flags that keeps you from padding multiple
unsolicited RSP messages into a single frame, just as you suggest for HO
optimized profiles, all other considerations being equal.
Sorry about not being more available over the last two weeks, but have been
traveling and completely buried. My time will improve after returning to
the States tomorrow.
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Itzik Kitroser" <itzikk@RUNCOM.CO.IL>
To: <STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] Harmonization of
> Hello all,
>
> I have uploaded document named "C802.16e-04_87r2" to the handoff ad hoc
> upload directory.
> It is my attempt to harmonize documents "C802.16e-04_105_Enhanced
> Handover Re-entry" and "C802.16e-04_87r1"
>
> I have used the descriptive text of C802.16e-04_87r1 and added
> informative and normative definitions of Communication shared levels
> concepts from "C802.16e-04_105_Enhanced Handover Re-entry"
>
> One point though, I don't agree with the concept which was presented at
> C802.16e-04_105_Enhanced Handover Re-entry of changing the RNG-REQ
> message and adding to it TLVs with different processes.
> I think that such approach breaks communalities of MAC behavior with TGd
> and other MAC state machines.
> The approach that was taken is to clearly define the communication
> sharing level, and which procedure is required according to the working
> level.
> The optimization of the process is done in two levels; first, all the
> network entry messages may be transmitted in a consecutive way, in one
> frame (assuming to have enough allocation from the BS).
> Second, according to the sharing level, some of the network entries may
> be skipped. I agree that this adds additional MAC behavior, but it does
> it in a high level and not changes the local behavior per process (e.g.
> state machine).
>
> I did not receive any additional inputs from Phil and Jung-Won Kim, and
> I'm using this medium to seek for comments from the entire ad hoc group.
>
> Thanks,
> Itzik.
>