RE: [802.21] Interface of MIH with Upper layers
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Peretz Feder [mailto:pfeder@lucent.com]
|Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 4:29 PM
|To: Gupta, Vivek G
|Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
|Subject: Re: [802.21] Interface of MIH with Upper layers
|
|"This interoperability is typically well handled within OS boundaries."
|
|Vivek: How about ASIC vendors who may elect to implement MIH in their
ASIC.
|Example is a Qualcomm's 1x chip sets, which implemented even higher
layers
|like
|MIP (L3) within the ASIC modem. If you take such example you may need
API
|to
|layer like 2.5, which may be in the ASIC, and that API may be treated
as a
|SAP
|to the upper layer in the OS. So we have say L1-2.5 in the ASIC and L3
and
|above
|in the OS, which calls for normative interface text.
|
|Thought, comment?
[Gupta, Vivek G]
Not really. Depending on the OS, you may have an OS specific (MIH in
ASIC) device driver which could then interface L3 with the ASIC. OSs
have the flexibility to do it in their own way, and you cannot
enforce/control this in any way.
BR,
-Vivek
|
|On 1/19/2005 2:43 PM, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: Cheng Hong [mailto:hcheng@psl.com.sg]
|> |Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:16 AM
|> |To: Gupta, Vivek G; stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
|> |Subject: 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.
|> |
|> [Gupta, Vivek G]
|> This interoperability is typically well handled within OS boundaries.
|> Such modules (MIH) and upper layers are typically OS specific and use
|> set of services provided by OS middleware and system entities.
|> Defining this SAP in normative sense does not ensure interoperability
|> across OSs in any way.
|>
|> BR,
|> -Vivek
|>
|> |
|> |> -----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