RE: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [NETMAN_SG] contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
Phil,
This is in line with my thinking. 802.21 will define a range of
information that it can pass around and 802.16, amongst others, will be
free to pick and choose from that information, the things that it wants
to make available at a lower layer. The ARID and operator ID are two
obvious candidates. The benefit of this being that the information will
be commonly defined across heterogeneous systems, even if media specific
transports are used at the end of the day.
If we can pull it together in time, I hope that we can bring to the May
802.21 meeting a first pass at structure and coding of such information.
DJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Phillip
Barber
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 6:26 PM
To: STDS-802-16-MOBILE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] contributions for upcoming May 2004
meeting - ARID
In 16e, we know that we are going to have to expand the NBR-ADV beacon
to include other information elements that are currently not required to
meet a single operator, single network concept--16e's current mandate.
As we look at multiple 16e networks, and even multiple non-16e 802 and
other networks interacting, going forward we are going to have to do
some additions to NBR-ADV beacon (Operator ID anyone?) in 16e. We are
looking to 21 to develop a common set of information elements needed for
broadcast in the beacon to facilitate these activities.
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sungjin Lee" <steve.lee@samsung.com>
To: "'S. Daniel Park'" <soohong.park@samsung.com>; "'McCann, Stephen'"
<stephen.mccann@ROKE.CO.UK>; "'stds-802-21'" <stds-802-21@IEEE.ORG>
Cc: <ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM>; "'Pyungsoo Kim'" <kimps@samsung.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:47 PM
Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
> Hi Daniel, Stephen and all HO guys
>
> In my understanding, that kind of issue (e.g. ARID into beacon) is fit
> to
be
> discussed within 802.21.
> The ARID formant, recommended usage examples and scenarios also could
> be discussed and then put into the documentation released as 802.21
> spec. based on agreement between 802.21 attendees.
>
> However, the specific way to provide that ARID information over the
> air interface should be discussed within each WG. In fact, It sould be
> discussed within 802.11 WG to propose the changed Beacon frame
> structure including ARID and within 802.16 to propose the changed
> DL-MAP or NBR-ADV message including ARID.
>
> Let me know if I misunderstanding something from the Stephen's
> comments
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Sungjin Lee
> =====================================
> Global Standards & Research Team
> Telecommunication R&D Center
> SAMSUNG Electronics
>
> TEL : +82 31 279 5248
> MOBILE : +82 16 301 6603
> E-mail : steve.lee@samsung.com ======================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of S. Daniel
> Park
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:38 AM
> To: 'McCann, Stephen'; 'stds-802-21'
> Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'S. Daniel Park'; 'Pyungsoo Kim'
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
> Stephen, thanks your kindly comments on this work.
>
> I agree what you said, this solution can be applied for several
> wireless environments and I really hope it will be expanded to related
> WG as you stated 802.11 WIEN SG.
>
> I am deeply considering what approach is more general as 802.21 guys
> indicated and also waiting for various comments/feedbacks on this
> work.
>
> > However, the way that this information is communicated, be that over
> > a 802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be technology specific
> > and should really be discussed within the WG in charge of
> > standardising that technology.
>
> Regarding this comment, could you explain it more detail ?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: McCann, Stephen [mailto:stephen.mccann@roke.co.uk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:36 AM
> > To: 'S. Daniel Park'; 'stds-802-21'
> > Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM
> > Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
> >
> >
> > Daniel,
> > This is a very interesting issue, and I think it may be
> > applicable to more than one WG.
> >
> > The information that you would want to make available at the APs
> > (e.g. the ARID) is something that would seem to fit within the scope
> > of 802.21, where the benefits of having a generic identifier that
> > can be used over different technologies to support this L2/L3
> > handover distinction and what format this information should take
> > can be discussed.
> >
> > However, the way that this information is communicated, be that over
> > a 802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be technology specific
> > and should really be discussed within the WG in charge of
> > standardising that technology.
> >
> > Within 802.11 this issue would be welcome within 802.11 WIEN SG.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: S. Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@SAMSUNG.COM]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:50 AM
> > > To: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'stds-802-21'
> > > Cc: 'S. Daniel Park'
> > > Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > >
> > > At the previous meeting on March, I presented one issue which
> > > dealt with unclear handover indication between L2 and L3 and this
> > > solution defined a new ARID (Access Router ID) into the beacon to
> > > distinguish L2 handover from L3 handover. If different ARID, it
> > > means subnet change, then L3 handover is performed.
> > >
> > > The subject was as below:
> > > Awareness of the handover to be distinguished from a L2 or L3.
> > >
> > > I remember that chair and some guys required more general solution
> > > to solve this problem in the 802.11 and they worried about the
> > > newly defined value into the current 802.11 beacon, however I am
> > > still wondering how we can solve this ambiguous operation without
> > > 802.11 spec. extension like ARID or similar value.
> > >
> > > So I am open to listen some comments/views on this issue.
> > >
> > > My major question is that
> > > [1] Do I have to propose this solution to the 802.11 WG since this
> > > problem is originated from the 802.11 spec. ?
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > [2] Is this 802.21 WG is right place to deat with this issue ?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> > > - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk
> >
> > Registered Office: Roke Manor Research Ltd, Siemens House, Oldbury,
> > Bracknell, Berkshire. RG12 8FZ
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is
> > confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to
> > any third party without permission. This communication is for
> > information only and shall not create or change any contractual
> > relationship.
> >
> >
>