RE: Interface of MIH with Upper layers
Hi Vivek and all,
I think the answer to your question on the SAP depends on whether you see
the implemenators of the MIH and uppper layer the same people. If they are
always the same, maybe a normative definition of the SAP is not necessary.
However, if there are cases where the MIH and uppper layer (customer of MIH)
are implemented by different people, it probably needs to be well defined to
guarantee interoperability.
cheers
Cheng
> -----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: Thursday, January 20, 2005 2:08 AM
> To: stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Interface of MIH with Upper layers
>
>
> Hello 802.21 Folks,
>
> Another issue which seems to be emerging is the definition of
> MIH_L3_SAP or MIH_User_SAP, etc. as some have referred to in
> their proposals. The question is should this SAP be defined
> in normative sense within 802.21?
>
> This SAP allows higher layer (typically L3) entities to
> interface with MIH. This layer to layer communication in a
> local stack typically depends on specific OS, driver models
> in that OS and other requirements. So what would be the goal
> and benefits of defining this interface (SAP) in normative
> sense? Who would be the consumers of this and how can we
> drive/enforce this in normative sense?
>
> Folks have mentioned interoperability and other benefits
> around this. But it would be good to get a clear
> understanding around this as well. I am not sure if OS
> abstraction is the goal around some of this(?)
>
> Comments/Thoughts?
>
> BR,
> -Vivek
>
>