[STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS Harmonization

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hi, Yong Chang!

These days east asian morning/night weather's getting cooler cooler little
by little but MBS discussions are getting warmer and warmer day by day. I
appreaciate your leadership in leading MBS discussions.

1. Under the Samsung's proposal or current MBS security framework, is it
possible to allow some of contents and block remaining contents? For
example, CNN is allowed but some Movie channel is blocked.

2. HTTP tag. As I mentioned earlier, Accounting is out of scope of 802.16e,
but is it still out of scope of NetMan also. If it is not, I'd say why don't
we define some informative text on HTML tag for MBS information as the 3GPP2
defined BCMCS HTML tags.

3. As a cellular service operator, I welcomed Samsung's contribution because
it'll enrich IEEE 802.16 standards and give operator more discretion on
various features. And more than that, example figures makes me think that
these are designed especially for standalone handset, that is cellular
phone. I wonder whether those figures represent Notebook-connected Modem
card type connection. The rational behind this is that with Normal
OS(Windows, Linux) IP multicast packets are received and played ONLY when
that computer sent IGMP join(report).

So, when the MSS(with Normal OS) receives HTTP response(with MBS centents
list), it has to send and receive IGMP packets. But with your contribution,
802.16 MAC messages are used rather than IGMP in order to join IP multicast
group. Then BS may send IGMP to multicast router as if that BS is the IGMP
client.

Therefore, MBS application in MSS triggers IGMP using HTTP response
information. But IGMP is not used here so IGMP packet is handled by Modem
card or BS meaninglessly.

If we want to use Windows Media Player or Real Networks RealOne Player for
MBS contens playing with normal computer, we have to be more careful what
are presumaly missing in our thoughts. Because main target of MBS is handset
based, but excluding normal computer for MSS is not a good idea.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yong Chang" <yongchang@SAMSUNG.COM>
To: <STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS
Harmonization

> Dear Vladimir and all,
>
> First of all, I want to say sorry for not asking you before.
> But, the authors shown in the initial drafts are folks who are having
> comments on MBS issue now.
> I had tried to tell who is involved in making a harmonization on MBS now.
> When we upload the next version, we will strike out your name from the
> Harmonization Draft.
>
> Second of all, as I told in Harmonization Conference calls,
> we have still open issues in MBS now.
>
> Last of all, my technical comments are inline below with [YONG]
>
> I hope to understand what we are going to do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yong Chang
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vladimir Yanover" <vladimir.yanover@alvarion.com>
> To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
> Cc: <stds-802-16@ieee.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 8:31 PM
> Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS Harmonization
>
>
> > Thanks, I am completely satisfied
> > Vladimir
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 5:00 PM
> > > To: Vladimir Yanover
> > > Cc: stds-802-16@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS Harmonization
> > >
> > >
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > > I've edited the file, striking out your name.
> > >
> > > I've also noted in the index that "Vladimir Yanover has been deleted
> > > from the author list at his request."
> > >
> > > Let me know if you have any problem with this solution.
> > >
> > > Roger
> > >
> > >
> > > At 12:54 +0300 2004-08-13, Vladimir Yanover wrote:
> > > >All,
> > > >
> > > >I was surprised to find my name in contribution
> > > H80216e-04_005. It makes
> > > >wrong impression that I basically agree with its content.
> > > >I never saw this document before publication and was never
> > > asked to sign on
> > > >it. So I cannot be responsible
> > > >for content of the document as well as for statements
> > > expressed in the
> > > >document from the name of Alvarion.
> > > >
> > > >I find this way of actions inappropriate and request to
> > > remove the document
> > > >from 802.16 WEB site or at least to publish another version
> > > without my name.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >My view on multicast services is the following.
> > > >1. Requirements
> > > >- ability to receive MC content while in normal operations [not Idle]
> > > >- ability to employ power saving, at least while in normal operations
> > > >- MC content will be available only to authorized MSSs
> > > >
> > > >Ability to receive MC content while in Idle Mode should be a
> > > separated
> > > >capability.
> ##################
> [YONG]
> We don't need to put any limitation that MBS is applicable to only Normal
> operations.
> As I told several times, our MBS proposal is applicable to all MSS
> types(e.g., awake, sleep, and idle) with the same information element.
> For obtaining power saving, we want to use the same mechanism to be
applied
> to all MSS types.
> Explictly, the MSS can receive the registered MBS content only when it is
> successfully authenticated and authorized for MBS application content that
> it has requested.
> There is no technical reason to consider the ability to receive MBS
content
> while in idle mode as a separated capability.
> Technically, we can have much gain when the MSS in idle mode can receive
the
> MBS content seamlessly over multiple BSs because the MSS can receive the
> MBS application content on moving multiple BSs without any network
re-entry
> procedure.
> Additionally, the MBS does not limit the current normal operation
scenario.
> That is, the concurrent service(e.g., both unicast service on normal
> operation and MBS simultaneously) is always possible.
> ##################
>
> > > >
> > > >2. To satisfy above requirements actually no additional MAC
> > > features needed.
> > > >What we need is few informative sentences:
> > > >- Some of DL Service Flows are for distributon of multicast content
> > > >- While the MSS is in normal operations mode [not Idle], all
> > > procedures are
> > > >performed as in 6.3.13 [establishment of connections], usual
> > > >authorization/security stuff
> > > >is applicable. The MSS may go to sleep and be wakened by
> > > TRF-IND with
> > > >reference to the CID associated with multicast service
>
> ##################
> [YONG]
> I told your positions in previous Harmonization conference calls on issues
> and remedies.
> If I understand your proposal correctly, your proposal for DL SFID
> pre-reserved for MBS usage can be applicable to idle mode.
> However, it seems to me that what you said on authorization and security
for
> MBS is very very complex.
> If I follow your scenario, the MSS shall perform the current network entry
> procedure always whenever the MSS moves multiple BSs.
> You can not obtain Macro Diversity since the user-specific security
> mechanism is applied to the MBS.
> Accordingly, your proposal using current normal operation does not have
any
> performance improvement on receiving MBS content.
> Moreover, your proposal is very heavy and overhead to the BS and MSS
because
> BSs shall know how many MSSs are currently receiving the specific MBS
> content,
> how many MSSs are sleep mode currently, and MSS shall join the specific
MBS
> content at the network whenever MSS wants to change his MBS application
> channel.
>
> Conclusively, your scenario following the current normal operation is
based
> on current multicast service using IGMP on IP and above layer.
> The current standard can provide what you have in your mind at the
sacrifice
> of performance improvement(e.g., Macro Diversity), simplicity(e.g., BS
> management, MSS join and leave procedure)
> and generality(e.g., regardless of the MSS's mode).
> Repeatedly speaking, our simplified MBS proposal does not effect on the
> current normal operation.
> ##################
>
>
> > > >
> > > >3. Ability of MSS to receive MC content while in Idle mode
> > > should be a
> > > >separated capability. In this case authorization should be
> > > supported by
> > > >upper layers.
> > > >For example, the content may be encrypted and only
> > > authorized MSSs will have
> > > >the key. Mapping of MC SFIDs onto CIDs shall be known to all BSs
> > > >in the network and to all relevant MSSs [mechanism is out of
> > > scope of 16e]
>
> ##################
> [YONG]
> As I said earlier, what you said in the above is fine to me.
> Now, we are waiting for another company's comment for harmonization.
> ##################
>
> > > >
> > > >The only issue remains power save while in Idle mode. To
> > > provide that,
> > > >MBS_MAP Information Element may be useful, but I would make it more
> > > >general: allow any CID to be encoded including Basic CID of
> > > some MSS. Then
> > > >such IE would signal to relevant MSS[s] that there will be
> > > no DL traffic at
> > > >the CID within certain time interval [so the MSS may save
> > > power, go for
> > > >scanning etc.] Accordingly the name should be changed [e.g. to "Idle
> > > >interval IE"].
> ##################
> [YONG]
> I do not understand what you are proposing.
> MBS-MAP extended IE is for the prediction when the next MBS frame is
> transmitted.
> Why this feature should be bound with MSS's Basic CID?
> MBS_MAP IE is not relevant to the MSS but relevant to the Multicast CID of
> MBS content.
> This MBS_MAP has already covered normal operation. Don't need to limit to
> the Idle Mode only.
> ##################
>
> > > >
> > > >Other concepts are more less covered by existing
> > > constructions. For example
> > > >virtual connection / "MBS Zone" functions are covered by Service Flow
> > > >concept
> ##################
> [YONG]
> For the virtual connection concept, I can be willing to harmonize your
> concept because most of companies
> agreed with the concept that MBS connection infomation shall be the same
> over multiple BSs.
>
> MBS Zone is applicable to tell the Macro Diversity Zone and regional
> specific deployment
> ##################
>
> > > >
> > > >Vladimir
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Beomjoon (BJ) Kim [mailto:beom@LGE.COM]
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 11:31 AM
> > > >> To: STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS
> > > Harmonization
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Dear Yigal
> > > >>
> > > >> You mean that every BS will be able to support Macro
> > > >> Diversity in PHY level.
> > > >> Am I right? If so, we agree with you in that the negotiation
> > > >> procedures are not necessary.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, if you have another comment or answer, please give me a
> > > >> feedback.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> BJ
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: <owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > > >> To: <STDS-802-16-MOBILE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:40 AM
> > > >> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS
> > > Harmonization
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Dear BJ,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am not aware that there currently exists a possibility
> > > >> that a BS will not
> > > >> > support the MBS zone in the PHY level, and I'm not sure we
> > > >> want to promote
> > > >> > BS that do not support this very important capability, so I
> > > >> don't think a
> > > >> > negotiation is required.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > BR,
> > > >> > Yigal
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@listserv.ieee.org
> > > >> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@listserv.ieee.org]On
> > > >> Behalf Of Beomjoon
> > > >> > (BJ) Kim
> > > >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:03 PM
> > > > > > To: STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS
> > > Harmonization
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Dear Yong Chang and all involved in MBS
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'm BJ from LG Electronics.
> > > >> > We want to clarify a few things and our position regarding
> > > >> the issue in the
> > > >> > uploaded contribution by Yong Chang.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1) Basically, we agree to that Pre-Advermisement may not be
> > > >> necessary under
> > > >> > the assumption of Macro Diversity.
> > > >> > Therefore, NBR-ADV message may not include MBS Zone ID of
> > > >> neighbor BSs (if
> > > >> > there is no need for an MSS to perform HO under the assumption).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2) However, when an MSS attempts to enter network at a BS,
> > > >> it is necessary
> > > >> > for the MSS to negotiate MBS capability with the BS whether
> > > >> or not the BS
> > > >> > can support MBS based on Macro Diversity. It is because all
> > > >> BSs may not
> > > >> > support MBS with Macro Diversity. So, we have proposed that
> > > >> Mode Support
> > > >> > Indication (MBS support) should be included in
> > > REG-REQ/RSP in our
> > > >> > contribution (H80216e-04/01).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 3) Also, we have proposed a Backbone message to manage the
> > > >> BSs included in
> > > >> > MBS zone.
> > > >> > We want to hear your opinion about the backbone message.
> > > >> > (Alvarion people seem to think it may be out of scope.)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Additionally, we have a question.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Under the environment where Macro Diversity is supported,
> > > >> we understand that
> > > >> > there is no need for an MSS receiving only MBS traffic to
> > > >> perform Handover
> > > >> > procedures.
> > > >> > However, there may be a case where an MSS starting to
> > > >> receive MBS traffic
> > > >> > from BS 1 moves to BS 2.
> > > >> > In this case, BS 2 does not know the MSS is in its coverage
> > > >> because the MSS
> > > >> > did not perform HO procedures.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In this situation,
> > > >> > Q1: If there is DL traffic addressed to the MSS, how can
> > > >> either BS1 or BS2
> > > >> > trasmits the traffic to the MSS without any session
> > > >> information of the MSS?
> > > >> > If the MSS is in Idle Mode when the DL traffic arrives (at
> > > >> this time the DL
> > > >> > traffic will arrive at BS1), the DL traffic may be
> > > >> delivered to the MSS
> > > >> > using the existing procedures of Idle Mode.
> > > >> > However, if the MSS is in Normal Mode or Sleep Mode, it is
> > > >> impossible to
> > > >> > deliver the traffic to the MSS.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Q2: If the MSS has UL traffic to transmit, should the MSS
> > > >> perform Initial
> > > >> > Network Entry at BS2?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thank you
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Regards,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > BJ
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> > From: <owner-stds-802-16-mobile@listserv.ieee.org>
> > > >> > To: <STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org>
> > > >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 4:44 PM
> > > >> > Subject: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS Harmonization
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > All,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I have uploaded the initial draft for MBS Harmonization
> > > >> on the upload
> > > >> > > server.
> > > >> > > I showed in this draft how many comments on MBS were given.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > For conference call of MBS only, what I heard from
> > > the chair of
> > > >> > > Harmonization is that
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Time: August 5(Thursday), 3:30 PM (PST)
> > > >> > > Bridge Information: Chair will give information ASAP.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > If anyone have a contribution with MBS, then please
> > > >> upload it on the
> > > >> > server
> > > >> > > before the meeting.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thank,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Yong Chang/Ph.D
> > > >> > > Samsung Electronics, LTD
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
> > > >>
> > > >> **************************************************************
> > > >**********************
> > > >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> > > >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
> > > >> vandals & computer viruses.
> > > >> **************************************************************
> > > >**********************
> > > >>
> > > >This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
> > > >
> > > >*************************************************************
> > ***********************
> > > >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> > > >PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
> > > >computer viruses.
> > > >*************************************************************
> > ***********************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
> > >
> > > **************************************************************
> > **********************
> > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> > > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
> > > vandals & computer viruses.
> > > **************************************************************
> > **********************
> > >
> > This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
> >
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> ********
> > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer
> viruses.
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> ********
> >
>
>
>