Re: [802.21] Higher layer requirem ents for IETF: IS per technology
Hi Michael and Vivek,
These are great. Having a very thin basic set of MI
(media-independent) IEs seems to be a good idea. We can definitely
come up with such a basic set quickly.
Regarding basic set of MD IEs, it stil seems blur as to whether we can
really agree on solid set of MD IEs, even if it can be updated later.
I'd rather would like to see them defined in an extended set.
Having said that, I and my colleague are currently heavily looking
into automatically generating extended schemas that can describe any
media-dependent and higher-layer specific IEs from MIBs such as 802.11
and 802.16 MIBs for link-layers as well as IP, Interface and IPv6 MIBs
for higher-layers. This can be based on SMIv2 to RDF-Schema
translation. I believe this will allow maximum flexibility as well as
make our information modeling business much easier (i.e., we don't
need to think about which media-dependent information needs to be
supported.) By this, we can completely clean-up extended schema from
Annex.
Also, I am writing some introductory text about XML and RDF to help
people more understand about XML and RDF as well as some comparison
between XML/RDF and TLV or ANS.1.
Hope this helps,
Yoshihiro Ohba
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:45:26AM -0700, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
> Michael,
>
> These are great thoughts and in general this seems like a good line of
> thinking. Yes, I have not seen any new issues raised either as well..
>
> As for IEs, yes initially a client may just want to know list of
> networks available and other high level information which is completely
> media independent (location, etc.). This part can be a very small list
> of IEs.
>
> Thereafter there could be a basic set of IEs specific for each access
> network which could provide specifics w.r.t high level details of that
> access network (security, QoS, operator, cost, data rate, etc.) and this
> could be followed by more detailed neighbor reports, etc. As for
> neighbor reports IMO 802.21 would be better off defining a new media
> independent format which has all relevant information from handover
> perspective and can also apply to different access technologies.
>
> Also as long as there is a way to retrieve individual IEs (or even a
> group) through some TLV based mechanism, aspects related to specific
> grouping of these IEs do not seem that important.
>
> Best Regards,
> -Vivek
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:39 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Higher layer requirem ents for IETF: IS per technology
>
> Colleagues,
>
> Some thoughts to narrow the discussion...
>
> Regarding scenarios/use cases and reference model...
> This seems to be a topic that won't die :) At least let's hope no one
> brings up tight vs. loose coupling again!
>
> What is the issue, the list of technologes to support? Isn't it 3GPP,
> 3GPP2, .3, .11, .15, .16, and if they want .20?
>
> Which combinations are supported in handovers?
> We agreed not to favor one handover algorithm over another so
> network or device can initiate, w/ any mobility protocol.
> We agreed not to worry about intra technology handovers, but
> otherwise to facilitate handover between any supported types. So any
> network type can be the source for IS.
> The location of the MIH function serving the IS can be more than
> a link away and also might be accessed by passing through legacy devices
> without MIH function, so we must support L3+ access in addition to L2.
>
> Where does the MIH function live in the system? I thought we agreed in
> any device. I can certainly see the use for it in VPN gateways, FW's,
> NATs, routers, wireless PoAs (e.g. BS, AP etc), wired switches, mobile
> devices, etc.
>
> But this is all old news. Have new issues been raised here?
>
> Colleagues,
>
> Regarding what is being handed over...
> Colleagues,
>
> Regarding an IS basic schema per-technology...
>
> Hopefully there will be a breadth of IS IE's which are common across
> media types, which will be a core value of the standard, along with
> providing the semantic agreement across the media types, and
> standardizing the organizational criterion that no terms are to be
> reused with differing semantics.
>
> It doesn't surprise me if the basic set for each technology might have
> *some* differences from the other technologies. Not sure why that would
> be a problem actually? This could be split into basic MI (independent)
> and basic MD (dependent) to accommodate that need.
>
> "Basic" would mean that set of semantic agreements and terms that are
> guaranteed to be in the MIH capable device. Basic MI would be common to
> all media; Basic MD would be for IS IE's different per media type. Basic
> MD could be required to use unique terms.
>
> One of the hopes for the XML approach was the ease of updating the
> mobile device on the fly (after initial deployment at any rate) This is
> certainly true for the extended set, but why not for the basic set as
> well?
>
> If so, maintaining separate basic MD sets for each technology would be
> small but nice benefit since updating one (e.g. the .11 basic MD set)
> wouldn't have to affect the others (e.g. the .3 basic set)?
>
> .21 standard would require the base semantic values which are common
> across multiple basic sets are the same, and to belong to the basic MI
> set.
>
> This approach might fit well if there were the desire for 802.11u for
> example to define IE's unique to .11 yet need to be in every .11u
> device.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best Regards,
> Michael
>
>
> ss
>