RE: [802.21] Renaming MIH?
Oops, my mistake for the title.
Vivek, from my pov there is no need to change the PAR. However, since this is not urgent, I agree with you we should look at the impact of 802.1am. However, since their PAR has not been aproved, it will be a long time before we can know what they do. We can perhaps handling change of name and modifications of PAR as two separate issues.
Stefano
________________________________
From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
Sent: Fri 7/22/2005 1:20 PM
To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas); STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802.21] Higher Layer requirements for IETF: conference calls details
This thread could use a different subject.
Does the below request imply a PAR change?
I am not sure if any of the scenarios mentioned below, cannot be covered
by 802.21 under current PAR. A group name change may not be a bad idea,
though it's not clear at this stage if the current scope of work in
802.21 (PAR) also needs to be changed.
Would also like to see how the 802.1AM issues resolve and the potential
impact on 802.21. That one certainly has the potential to impact 802.21
PAR.
Best Regards,
-Vivek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org]
On
> Behalf Of stefano.faccin@nokia.com
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:17 AM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802.21] Higher Layer requirements for IETF: conference
calls
> details
>
> Fellow 802.21 colleagues,
> in the recent months the 802.21 group has been having contacts and
> discussions with several other SDOs. In many occasions there has been
the
> need to clarify what "MIH" actually means. In addition, several
parties in
> 802.21 have become aware of the fact that some scenarios that 802.21
did
> not target initially can indeed be enabled through 802.21 services. A
> clear example of this is IP multi-homing and scenarios where at time
t0 a
> mutli-mode terminal with multiple access cards (e.g. 3GPP, .11, .16)
has
> multiple communications over a single IP connection (e.g. data and
VoIP)
> over access A1, and thanks to MIES at time t1 the terminal has a
subset of
> the communications still over A1 but has switched the remaining subset
to
> a different IP connection (or same, depending on the scenarios) over
> access A2. This scenario is typically not referred to as
handoff/handover,
> but can still be enabled by 802.21 services. Another example is the
use of
> MIIS before any connections with any acces!
> s technologies are selected, and MIIS is used to helpt he terminal in
> network selection. This scenario can also hardly be referred to as
> handoff/handover.
>
> Due to these reasons, I came to the conclusion that perhaps we may
want to
> stretch us a little bit and rename the group. Currently, the MIH name
is
> strongly connected to handoff. Adopting a name such as Media
Independent
> Mobility Enablers (MIME) or Media Independent Mobility Services (MIMS)
may
> change the name enogh to make it match the actual set of scenarios
that
> 802.21 already enables, while maintaining a strong tie with the
current
> name.
>
> I have been discussing this with some of the 802.21 members present at
the
> San Francisco meeting, and I received positive feedback on the idea. I
> apologize if I did not get around to talk to all of you. I welcome
your
> feedback/comments, but at the same time I would like to avoid flooding
the
> 802.21 mailing lsit with this issue, since the priority is not very
high
> and much more important discussions need to take place over the list
int
> he next weeks.
>
> BR,
> Stefano
>