| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Mark,
Thanks for the comments. I think your discussion actually made the case for getting rid of the term air-interface because it really does lack any descriptive information about what we are developing.
Therefore, I would use the language of your definitions with the following changes:
Definition:
1) The radio-link is the radio-frequency portion of the transmission path between the wireless terminal (usually portable or mobile) and the active base station or access point. 2) The radio-link is the shared boundary between a wireless terminal and the base station or access point.
The introduction to the final standard would read:
This standard specifies the layer 1 and layer 2 Radio Link Protocol or RLP, between compliant wireless terminals and base stations.
I don’t think there is anything that would preclude us from using terminology that is already used in other standards. In fact, this may help many of our 3GPP/2 members understand what it is we are trying to standardize, since they have already done it.
Best Regards,
geoff
Geoffrey T. Anderson Polar Industries, Inc. 45 Roe Avenue Cornwall on Hudson, NY 12520-1403
Phone: 845-534-4589 Fax: 845-818-3513 Cell: 914-843-9572 -----Original
Message-----
I agree with Jim Mollenauer. Specifically the term RLP as used by Jim Tomcik actually refers to a very specific protocol used in UMTS. Here is the definition of RLP:
RLP - Radio Link Protocol Radio Link Protocol terminates at the MS (Mobile Station) and the IWF (Interworking Function) generally located at the MSC (Mobile Switching Centre). It utilizes the reliability mechanisms of the underlying protocols in order to deliver data. (http://www.mpirical.com/companion/mpirical_companion.html#http://www.mpirical.com/companion/GSM/RLP_-_Radio_Link_Protocol.htm)
I would like to toss out the following for people to consider.
Considerata: The word "Interface" is somewhat ambiguous in that we are using it in the two senses given in Webster's:
2 a : the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other <the man-machine interface> b : the means by which interaction or communication is achieved at an interface
we seem to be using it in both the sense of 2a and 2b. This is the root of the difference in the two definitions that have been shared. So we could speak about an air-interface and even an air-interface interface.
We have the definition provided by Gang Wu (via the Intel website) : the air interface is the radio-frequency portion of the circuit between the cellular phone set or wireless modem (usually portable or mobile) and the active base station.
And the one provided by Dan Gal (via the Ericsson web-site): "The air interface is the shared boundary between a mobile and the base station."
IEEE 100 (The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms) provides the following "general definition" [def 4] for "interface": A shared boundary
Suggestion for a way forward:
I would therefore suggest the following: We define air-interface as:
Definition:
1) The air interface is the radio-frequency portion of the transmission path between the wireless terminal (usually portable or mobile) and the active base station or access point. 2) The air interface is the shared boundary between a wireless terminal and the base station or access point.
I am trying to avoid using air-interface interface, and I believe that 2 in essence is taking a look at the "cross section" of the air interface between the mobile and base station. I have paraphrased definition one to remove the term "circuit" and replace it with the more generic "transmission path" due to the potential connectionless packet nature of the path.
The intro/preamble to the actual standard could then read eg:
This standard specifies the layer 1 and layer 2 protocols of the air-interface between compliant wireless terminals and base stations. (English to be fixed and polished when we get there).
In the requirements document we can put a similar statement in the overview. Note that the discussion as to whether we indicate what layer a requirement applies to is a separate issue.
This is in line with IEEE standards, 3G standards and ISO standards that all use the term air interface in a similar manner.
Sorry about this somewhat lengthy epistle. I hope it helps in getting us towards closure.
Mark
-----Original
Message-----
I respectfully
disagree. A protocol and an interface are not the same thing. A protocol
specifies what happens when, and generally involves several information
transfers across one or more interfaces. An interface is the boundary
between two entities, across which information may flow according to some
protocol. I think Jim Tomcik had discussed a term Radio Link Protocol, or RLP during the San Francisco meeting. After replacing Air Link with Radio Link or Radio Link Protocol in the document and then re-reading, it seems to make much more sense.
I would agree with Alan's 10/2 proposal to remove Air Interface and replace with Radio Link or Radio Link Protocol where it makes sense. Also this decision would carry forward to all documents of 802.20, as Alan proposed.
geoff
Geoffrey T. Anderson 45 Roe Avenue Cornwall on Hudson, NY 12520-1403
Phone: 845-534-4589 Fax: 845-818-3513 Cell: 914-843-9572 -----Original
Message-----
At least I found one from the web.
"In cellular telephone communications, the air interface is the radio-frequency portion of the circuit between the cellular phone set or wireless modem (usually portable or mobile) and the active base station."
Regards, Gang Wu |