>The second sentence
tries to capture the idea of poviding aggregate abstraction to upper layers.
Yes that should be
the intent but it's not reflected well in the sentence because the examples of
services you are using to describe that, are basically L2
services.
> [Bhatt Yogesh-E42614] the
example services try to are definitely L2 services but in
heterogeneous network scenarios "Link availability" is not simply
the link up trigger from layer 2, here it rather means much more because
the "availabilty" is to be
quantified.
>For example
when any entity is interested in knowing all about new links,
their parameters for QoS, security and loading consdition etc....it invokes
the Link >availability service
at L 2.5, which then collects/registers various triggers/hints/MIB and respond
to that entity.
>
This particular case
is probably a bad example.
Just because a L2.5
exists (which probably includes handover policies etc.) higher layers may NOT
want to know about all the details you describe above, but may probably want
to know a higher layer abstraction of the same, some action like initiate
handover to link X, etc.
>
[Bhatt Yogesh-E42614] you
mis interpreted it. The higher layer never know the details..its
just invokes the service and rest is done at L2.5 Its is this l2.5 that
knows what action needs to be taken for the invoked service by upper
layer.
>
Would rather describe
as follows:
Layer 2.5 shall use the services provided
by layer 2 such as secured connection, guaranteed
delivery.
Layer 2.5 shall provide services that provide a higher
layer of abstraction to upper layers.
These could include services to initiate change to a
particular L2 link, etc......other more illustrative examples
[Bhatt Yogesh-E42614] here it seems
you are assuming handover function residing inside L2.5 but it may
not be that way because it all depends upon the specifc
implementation.
so i would propose to re-phrase it :
"Layer
2.5 shall provide services that aggregate and abstract various layer 2
services enhanced with network information, triggers & hints in
a media independent
fashion."
BR,
-Vivek
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24,
2004 9:10 AM
To: Bhatt
Yogesh-E42614
Cc: Ajay
Rajkumar; Michael G. Williams
Subject: RE: [802.21] Unresolved
Comments
Suggested text:
"
Layer 2.5 shall use the services provided
by layer 2 such as secured connection, guaranteed
delivery.
Layer 2.5 shall provide services to upper layers
such as Link availability, Link parameters in push and pull both
modes
"
Yogesh,
I am NOT sure if
you really intend the second sentence above.
Services such as
Link Availability and link parameters are basically provided by layer
2.
If layer 2.5
extends these same services to higher layers, then it's just acting as a
passthru....
Regards
-Vivek
From: Bhatt
Yogesh-E42614 [mailto:yogeshbhatt@motorola.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:59
AM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Cc:
'STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: [802.21] Unresolved
Comments
Editorial work has
changed one of the comments by me and Alan last
meeting.
Comments from
7/14:
o
Could add service to
handle L2 based handoffs and perhaps make them "invisible" to higher layers
unless higher layers express interest in the
process/events
o
Can get "wider" in
time
Now it look like
below in current version 7 of req draft.
The L2.5 can get "broader" in terms of
functionality and can provide many other services seamlessly to higher
layers.
So the entire idea
of putting a subsection regarding -the service requested by L2.5 from
layers below it and services offered by L2.5 to the layers above -has been
lost in editorial work.
Re-working on these
would capture the comemnts in its true
meaning.
Suggested text:
(Alan please give your input ASAP)
Layer 2.5
shall use the services provided by layer 2 such as secured
connection, guaranteed delivery.
Layer 2.5
shall provide services to upper layers such as Link availability, Link
parameters in push and pull both modes.
Vivek , I am unable
to post to IEEE list server today. Please forward it to Alan and List
server. I appreciate your help here.
Yogesh
Bhatt
Global Standards-Personal
Communications Sector
M
600 North U.S.
Highway
45
Libertyville,
IL 60048, USA
Phone: +1-847-523-0126,
Fax:
+1-847-523-5660
Mobile:
+1-847-668-0334,
SMS: +18476680334@tmomail.com
Email: yogeshbhatt@motorola.com
-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Gupta, Vivek G
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 11:50
AM
To:
STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802.21] Unresolved
Comments
Hello,
Please find list
of all unresolved comments (Ajay, Mani, Eric, Reijo) after today's
teleconference.
If there are any
other comments that I may have missed or any others that need to be
included in this list, please let me know.
Best
Regards
-Vivek