Re: [STDS-802-16] Is "provisioned authorization model" equivalent to "static authorization model"?
Hello again,
I think we need to distinguish between the 'configure' step and the 'create' step for provisioned service flows. A provisioned service flow must be configured by the network management system (presumably using the MIB), and must be assigned a network-unique SFID as part of the configuration. When an SS registers, the BS will create provisioned service flows for this SS using the DSA-XXX messages, according to the details configured in the MIB. In this sense, 'create' simply means that the BS and SS exchange messages to instantiate the service flow in the air interface protocol stacks. If the service flow uses polled scheduling, and is created in the active state, then polling will start at this point. I don't believe that an SS or a BS will be able to act on a DSC-REQ for a service flow that has not previously been created by a DSA-REQ, even if the service flow is configured in the MIB.
Hope this helps, Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: jjlee@itri.org.tw [mailto:jjlee@itri.org.tw]
Sent: 29 November 2004 03:24
To: Mark Thomas
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16] Is "provisioned authorization model" equivalent to "static authorization model"?
Hi,
Your reply really helps me a lot, thank you. You are right, the term ''DSx'' is confusing, however, according to my recognition the provisioned service flow can be created manually at the SS and the BS and use DSC-REQ to activate it (6.3.14.6.1 Provisioned service flows). But I read some article (Intel Technology Journal vol 8, iss03 - ''IEEE 802.16 Medium Access Control and Service Provisioning'' page p.220) and it says that the BS will use DSA to create a pre-provisioned service flow. That is another confusing thing, since according to definition the provisioned service flow, it is assigned a SFID while it being created and the service flow should already exist before the SS entering the network. I think DSC is more appropriate since the provisioned service flow is already exist.
Best Regards,
Chi-Chen Lee
==========================================
Industrial Technology Research Institute Computer & Communications Research Lab.
==========================================
---------------- Original Message ----------------
> ''Mark Thomas'' <mthomas@Airspan.com> 2004-11-29 05:15:32 AM wrote:
$BZ@7o?M (J: <jjlee@ITRI.ORG.TW>,<STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org>
$B<g;] (J: RE: [STDS-802-16] Is ''provisioned authorization model'' equivalent to ''static authorization model''?
Hi,
In my opinion, 'static' and 'provisioned' are the same in this context.
The 'dynamic' model is inherited more-or-less unchanged from DOCSIS. The term 'static' is appropriate for DOCSIS (where static service flows are defined in a configuration file), but 'provisioned' is perhaps more appropriate for 802.16, where service flows can be defined by configuring the BS using the MIB. Of course, this leads to some confusion because, in 802.16, all service flows are created using the dynamic service addition message, regardless of whether they are dynamic or provisioned.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of No Name
Sent: 26 November 2004 12:38
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16] Is ''provisioned authorization model'' equivalent to ''static authorization model''?
Hi all,
Can anybody clarify the difference between the ''provisioned authorization model'' and ''static authorization model''?
According to section 6.3.14.5, p. 222 in 802.16-2004, there are two authorization model: static authorization model and dynamic authorization model. But in Figure 93 and Figure 94, p.220, it illustrates another two authorization model: provisioned authorization model and dynamic authorization model. Since there is no further description of the provisioned authorization model, can I assume that ''provisioned authorization model'' is equivalent to ''static authorization model''?
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Chi-Chen Lee
==========================================
Industrial Technology Research Institute Computer & Communications Research Lab.
==========================================