Re: [STDS-802-16] Comment 332

[Ken Stanwood <kstanwood@CYGNUSCOM.COM>]

Title: Comment 332

These are good issues.  The whole concept of what it means to be an unmanaged SS needs solidified.  I think there is a real need for unmanaged as well as managed SSs, but the treatment of unmanaged is not complete.

 

Item 2 is a very good question, also.  We need to decide whether there should be more info passed during registration, say for instance PHS for the SM connection.  I would like to see it treated like a data connection of a known type, for a know purpose, but possibly with some parameterization.

 

I think it can, however, wait until TGe to fully flesh out.

 

Ken

---

From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Ravi Joganathan
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:31 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Comment 332

There appears to be a couple of issues in relation to the resolution of comment 332 that appear not to have been given consideration and which I would like the resolution of the comment to cover if possible.

1)      Whether to keep the SM open or not after the initialisation.
2)      Whether traffic normally carried over SM does pass through CS SAP (or not).

Can anyone help us with references to the text that would help clarify these issues.

On a related topic, it seems that SNMP management of SS is most easily achieved if this management traffic flows through the CS SAP.

If secondary management is not handled in this way, it appears additional complexity will be introduced in the BS (SNMP proxy).

Ravi

Ravi Joganathan
Senior Software Engineer
Airspan Networks Inc