| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Jeong My interpretation of Bit #6 is exclusion of services
associated with other retaining information. If you interpret Bit #6 "Full
service" as including all the services related with Bits #0-#5, then
similarly Bit #6 in HO Optimization flags should be interpreted in the same way.
However bit #6 is not interpreted that way. I think Bit#6 “full service”
should be interpreted as additional information – along with network
address (IP address) - needed to make IP packet arrive either to the last
attached BS or Paging Controller. Therefore, technically we can have all
possible combinations with 6 different bits. Thanks, Ronny -----Original Message----- Hi Ronny, Phil and all: Thank you for the kind explanation, Ronny. Now we have two questions: Q1. Is Bit #2 meaningful when Bit #6 is set (to 1)? Q2. Is Bit #2 meaningful when Bit #6 is unset? There seems to be no disagreement in that the answer to
Q2 is YES. But, regarding Q1, Ronny's answer is YES while Phil's is
NO. To resolve this problem, we need consensus on the
following issues: 1. Interpretation of "Full service" in Bit
#6 If "Full service" excludes the services
associated with SBC-REQ/RSP, PKM-REQ/RSP, REG-REQ/RSP, Network Address, Time of
Day, and TFTP (as opposed to the meaning of "Full service"),
then the answer to Q1 would be YES. Otherwise (that is, if it includes all the services
related with Bits # consensus on the second issue below. 2. Priority of Bit #6 over Bits #0-#5 Let's assume that we had consensus that Full service
includes all the services related with Bits # case when Bit #6 is set to 1. If Bit #6 has higher priority over Bits # determine what kind of resources are to be retained;
Bits # meaningless (this is the case what Phil said, I
think), and the answer to Q1 is NO. If Bit #6 has lower priority, then theoretically, we
can make the Bits # Bits having the value of 0 (I think this is the case
what Ronny demonstrated with reference to Bit #2 and Bit #6).
Although theoretically possible, I failed to see any practical
significance of doing this. Even in Ronny's demonstration, it was
necessary to set Bits #2 and #6 at the same time if we want to have
practical significance (that is, to receive DL traffic). In summary, I agree with the interpretation of "Full service" as including all the services related with Bits #0-#5. I also agree with the idea that prioritizes Bit #6 over Bits #0-#5. What seems certain is that we need a little more work
to remove the ambiguities about Idle mode retain information Bits.
I'll be honored if I can do that job. Thank you, Jeong -- DoCoMo Communications Laboratories USA, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Ronny (Yong-Ho) Kim [mailto:ronnykim@lge.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 To: Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] Request for clarification:
Idle mode retain information Bit #6 Jeong IF Bit#6 is set 0 and CS classifier information is not
retained, BS (or Paging Controller) can not take packets, IP packets to
be more specific, from the network. If BS can not take IP packets from
the network, no DL traffic will be delivered to Idle Mode MSSs. If MSS wants
to receive DL traffic from the network then MSS should request to
set bit#3 and bit#6 at the same time. Thank you, Ronny -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Request for clarification:
Idle mode retain information Bit #6 Phil and all, Thank you for the kind and prompt reply. If no one disagree with Phil, wouldn't it be better to
explicitly require Bit #6 to be 0 so as for the Bits # the current draft? If we do so, we'll have additional 64 reserved
combinations of Bits # which may be necessary in the future. As to Bit #7, I'm preparing a proposal of using the
bit to limit the resource retention when Bit #2 or Bit #6 is set so
that only the resource of the service flows with positive Resource
Retention Preference (or Paging Preference) should be retained. Thank you, Jeong -- DoCoMo Communications Laboratories USA, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@broadbandmobiletech.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 To: Cc: Ronny Kim; Kim Minsung; ???; Chulsik Yoon; Mo-Han
Fong Subject: Re: Request for clarification: Idle mode
retain information Bit #6 I think that setting Bit#6 to '1' is just like setting
Bits#0-5 to '1' PLUS it includes retention of other stateful elements
like MAC state machines, counters, CS classifiers, etc... So when Bit#6 is set to '1', the values for all other
Bits are meaningless. Thanks, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: " To: <ronnykim@lge.com>; <cyberk@kt.co.kr>; <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>;
<jungje.son@samsung.com>; <csyoon@etri.re.kr>;
<mhfong@nortelnetworks.com>; <STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org> Cc: "Toshiro Kawahara"
<kawahara@docomolabs-usa.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 Subject: Request for clarification: Idle mode retain
information Bit #6 Hi all, Can anybody clarify the usage of idle mode retain
information Bit #6? When the bit is set (to 1), is it possible for any
other bit (that is, any of the Bits # The answer appears dependent on the interpretation of
the term "Full service." If "Full service" excludes
the services associated with SBC-REQ/RSP, PKM-REQ/RSP, REG-REQ/RSP, Network
Address, Time of Day, and TFTP (as opposed to the meaning of "Full
service"), then the answer would be YES. Otherwise (that is, if it includes all
the services related with Bits # be NO. Thanks, Jeong -- DoCoMo Communications Laboratories USA, Inc. (408) 451-4761 Tel (408) 573-1090 Fax **********************Confidentiality
Note********************** Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained
in this e-mail and any attachment to it and may be covered by existing
non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements. If you are not the addressee
(or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy
or disclose to anyone any information contained in this e-mail.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete it from your system. Thank you very
much. ************************************************************* |