RE: [802.21] Interface of MIH with Upper layers
SAPs may be informative or normative, but my intent behind this being
informative was based on notion of difficulty in enforcing
interoperability at this level. Even from DJ's message below, the
normative intent is more of a hope/plea for interoperability, but the
reality is quite different.
-Vivek
|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-
|21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Peretz Feder
|Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:56 PM
|To: Subir Das
|Cc: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
|Subject: 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
|>>>
|>>>
|>>>
|>>>