| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello Mo-Han, all, Thank you for the
comments. My basic approach was to
follow the suggestion from "04_105_Enhanced_HO_re-entry" and try to
keep the number of sharing levels to the minimum possible. The motivation here was
first, to reduce the number of possible cases, and, second, that if the
backbone communication level is sufficient to transfer the security key and
security context, than probably it is logical to assume that service flow
information may be shared as well. Any other comments are welcome. Thanks, Itzik. -----Original Message----- Hi Itzik, Jung-Won and all, I have a comment about the current definition of level
2 backbone communication. Level 2 includes transfer/sharing of both the
security information as well as service flow information. I would like to
suggest to separate level 2 into two levels. Basically, we will have the
following four levels: - level 1: transfer/sharing of MSS SBC profile By separating the transfer/sharing of security
information and service flow information into different levels, we will have
more flexibility in actual realization of network architecture. For example,
level 2 context sharing will be for the case of a centralized anthentication
server connecting to multiple BSs. Level 3 context sharing will be for the case
of a centralized 'BSC-like/light' node connecting to multiple BSs. Comments? Regards, Mo-Han -----Original Message----- Resend with correct subject and handoff tag!
Itzik. 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, |