Re: [802.21] Interface of MIH with Upper layers
Folks:
As I indicated in my presentation, we need to make sure the .21 solution is
HW/SW agnostic. Some implementations may interface at the HW to SW boundary, as
opposed to the self contained implementation within the HW or within the SW.
For the former case, we need a clearly defined APIs or SAPs that use the API
definitions.
Peretz Feder
On 1/19/2005 3:51 PM, Subir Das wrote:
> I also feel the same way. If we don't need this SAP definition as
> normative, then possibly
> we don't need the Standardization.
>
> -Subir
>
> Johnston, Dj wrote:
>
>>On these grounds, I would support a normative defintion.
>>
>>Even if the SAP is buried in a mobile device I'm making, I might well be
>>sourcing things like protocol stack independently. A normative defintion
>>would lead to a higher liklihood of software component interoperability.
>>
>>My other reason for preferring a normative defintion is slightly
>>philisophical.. What is the point of an informative SAP defintion? The
>>main point of a SAP is both to define a specific service and sometimes
>>to define the specifics of what information goes over the SAP for
>>interop purposes. If it's informative it looses both those qualities.
>>
>>DJ
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Cheng Hong
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:16 AM
>>To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>Subject: Re: [802.21] 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>