RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
Daniel,
Sorry, the IEEE gets so incestuous after a while that you begin to assume everyone knows everyone...
Steve McCann is the chair of a study group within 802.11 working on a PAR (project authorisation request) for a new amendment (or possibly recommended practice, or whatever) to 802.11 to cover interworking issues specific to 802.11.
Mike.
-----Original Message-----
From: S. Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@samsung.com]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 3:42 AM
To: 'Mike MORETON'; 'Clint Chaplin'; stds-802-21@ieee.org; dj.johnston@intel.com; stephen.mccann@ROKE.CO.UK; steve.lee@SAMSUNG.COM
Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; kimps@SAMSUNG.COM
Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
> Maybe Steve should add looking at this issue in a 802.11
> generic way as part of his PAR... Or could FR do it?
Mike, I don't know what you mean by *Steve* and his PAR.
It means steve.lee@samsung.com ?
Sorry it's too stupid question...:-)
- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike MORETON [mailto:mike.moreton@st.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 7:45 PM
> To: 'Clint Chaplin'; stds-802-21@ieee.org;
> dj.johnston@intel.com; stephen.mccann@ROKE.CO.UK;
> soohong.park@SAMSUNG.COM; steve.lee@SAMSUNG.COM
> Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; kimps@SAMSUNG.COM
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
>
> Clint,
>
> I'd say that's an internal issue for 802.11. I'd be
> surprised if the additional information added by 802.21 made
> the difference.
>
>
> Mike.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clint Chaplin [mailto:cchaplin@sj.symbol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:49 PM
> To: stds-802-21@ieee.org; dj.johnston@intel.com;
> stephen.mccann@ROKE.CO.UK; soohong.park@SAMSUNG.COM;
> steve.lee@SAMSUNG.COM; mike.moreton@ST.COM
> Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; kimps@SAMSUNG.COM
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
> Yes, the beacon is extensible in the way you recommend, but I
> think the issue is more pragmatic: just how big do we want to
> make the beacon?
> It's already pretty darn large and growing, and with multiple
> BSSIDs sharing a single radio for multi-BSSID setups, the
> beacon time is becoming a fair fraction of the total available time.
>
> Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
>
> >>> Mike MORETON <mike.moreton@ST.COM> 4/28/04 01:10:18 >>>
> All,
>
> In some senses anyone can extend the 802.11 beacon as there
> is now an OUI based extension mechanism. So for example, the
> WiFi alliance's WPA security extension to 802.11 uses an IE
> identified with (as I remember) the Microsoft OUI.
>
> So if 802.21 get an OUI allocated to them (probably not
> difficult) they could add whatever they want to the 802.11 beacon.
>
> I would suggest that it would be best to go slightly beyond
> that and get 802.11 to allocate a specific IE for 802.21 use.
> 802.21 could then create their own "sub-type" field, and
> have whatever IEs they wanted.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to get 802.11 to add a new IE
> for specific 802.21 features (in this case ARID) as that
> imposes a maintenance headache for the future.
>
> Mike.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Johnston, Dj
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 4:08 AM
> To: S. Daniel Park; steve.lee@SAMSUNG.COM; McCann, Stephen;
> stds-802-21
> Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; Pyungsoo Kim; cchaplin@symbol.com
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
> Daniel,
>
> There are four potential venues I can think of.
>
> 802.21 is an obvious place, since this is a small item of L3
> context information that can be used for optimization of the
> handover process, regardless of the media type. In fact I
> think you will find 802.21 to be fairly receptive to this
> idea, since I remember the ARID being discussed several times
> as a suitable thing to include in the handover information
> that 802.21 could make available.
>
> 802.16e or 802.16 Netman may want to adopt this as an
> efficiency measure.
>
> 802.11r 'Fast BSS Transition' may or may not want to address
> this, based on a determination of whether the ARID could
> change during a BSS transition.
>
> 802.11 WIEN has something of a cellular interworking angle.
> If Mobile IP is the unifying medium in an 802.11/cellular
> interworking scenario that WIEN ultimately addresses, the
> some representation of the ARID would be appropriate.
>
> Within 802.21 and 802.16 I see no conflict. It is appropriate
> for the same information to be available by both means. The
> point of supporting it in 802.16 would be that it could be
> passed at a lower layer and thus in a more timely fashion
> than 802.21 might achieve over that medium.
>
> Within 802.11, I suspect you do not need more than one group
> to address this, so its one of either 802.11r or WIEN. Given
> Steve's input, it looks like WIEN might be keen to help out.
>
> So I suggest you bring this to 802.21 as a proposal for an
> item of 'media independent handover information' that we
> should support and provide the necessary information relating
> to its use and semantics.
>
> In 802.16, I suggest steering clear of 802.16e, they are
> heavily into a comment resolution cycle and don't have room
> for new material. The 802.16 Netman SG in the medium term is
> likely to lead to a PAR that addresses optimized mobility
> procedures. I have ARID advertisments on my list of things to
> address in Netman and so we may have time to discuss this in
> the July meeting in Portland. If you are going to Shenzen for
> the 802.16 meeting in May, then you are welcome to bring it
> up as a scope item for Netman.
>
> In 802.11, take it to WIEN.
>
> DJ
> 802.16 Netman SG chair
>
>
> -----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: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 6:13 PM
> To: steve.lee@samsung.com; 'McCann, Stephen'; 'stds-802-21'
> Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'Pyungsoo Kim'
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
>
> Steve, please see my inline comments.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sungjin Lee [mailto:steve.lee@samsung.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:48 AM
> > To: 'S. Daniel Park'; 'McCann, Stephen'; 'stds-802-21'
> > Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'Pyungsoo Kim'
> > 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.
>
> It was my original question, so I guess this work is useful
> for related WG such as 802.11, 802.16 but the contribution
> should be discussed in the 80.21, of course we have to get
> the agreement of 802.11 to insert ARID into the beacon. Of
> course we have to get the agreement of 802.16 if ARID would
> be applied for 802.16.
>
> correct ? or am I missing anything ?
>
> I am not sure how I can get the agreement of 802.11 to
> insert ARID into the beacon. Do I have to propose it to the
> 802.11 as a document ? or 802.21 can be responsible for this
> collaboration. I am so curious...
>
>
> Regards.
>
> - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> This email has been scanned for computer viruses.
>
>