Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] Harmonization of
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Itzik Kitroser" <itzikk@runcom.co.il>
To: "'Phillip Barber'" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>;
<STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 1:53 AM
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] Harmonization of
> Phil,
>
> Please find my comments:
> The document did not suggest anything new, but rather harmonized the two
> approached which are available from the Shenzen meeting.
>
> I don't think that the sharing level should be dynamic, i.e. we should
> decide upon the levels and try to fix the profiles.
>
> The main difference between the approach of "C802.16e-04_87r2" and
> "C802.16e-04_105_Enhanced Handover Re-entry" is that I support of using
> the current existing messages (maybe in a shorten format - without all
> TLVs) in a concatenated manner rather than to use the RNG-REQ message as
> a platform to transfer other messages such as REG-REQ and SBC-REQ.
> The sharing level approach was raised and agreed in the Shenzen meeting.
>
> I was just trying to come up with appropriate normative text to be
> included in the standard in order to advance by having a baseline and
> stop talking in high level of should, would and could.
>
> Probably additional change may be to put the
> Backbone_Communication_level indicator in an RNG-RSP message from the
> Target BS.
>
> I'll be happy to see more concrete suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Itzik.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Phillip
> Barber
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:16 PM
> To: STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: 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.
> >
>
>
>