Re: comments regarding 21-05-0361-00-0000

[Peretz Feder <pfeder@LUCENT.COM>]

Vivek; See in line PF comments

Peretz

On 9/19/2005 2:32 AM, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peretz Feder [mailto:pfeder@lucent.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:57 PM
>To: Peretz Feder
>Cc: Gupta, Vivek G; Olvera-Hernandez, Ulises; yogeshbhatt@motorola.com;
>stefano.faccin@nokia.com; ronnykim@lge.com; xiaoyu.liu@samsung.com;
>wolfgang.groeting@siemens.com; stefan.berg@siemens.com;
>kalyan.koora@siemens.com; jins978@lge.com; yohba@tari.toshiba.com;
>subir@research.telcordia.com; Qiaobing Xie;
>STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: comments regarding 21-05-0361-00-0000
>
>Guys:
>
>1) I fail to understand Figure B and it has zero explanation. Does case
>2 implies two different connections to the same PoA? Didn't we indicated
>Ib is between PoA to another PoA? Here Ib indicates remote MIH, which is
>not consistent with the communication model.
>[Vivek G Gupta] 
>Yes, the above Figure has no explanation in the above contribution.
>Fig B in above contribution is *NOT* proposed to be included in the
>draft.
>It is in there so that it can be discussed as part of some other
>comments (no 85) as specified in the Commentary.
>  
>
PF: Please list here the comment, it is hard to follow it from the
commentary.

>
>2) What happened to the old section 5.3.3? changed? removed?
>[Vivek G Gupta] 
>Comment 85 (in my version of the Commentary tool) proposes new text (as
>part of Comment) to replace old section 5.3.3. in draft version 02
>(MIHF-MIHF communication in the Network) with some new text. 
>
PF: I can't read it from 85. Please list here.

>
>
>3) Why are we removing MAC-SAP from 802.11? Will all MAC related events
>will be require to go through LLC (data plane?)
>[Vivek G Gupta] 
>No events have currently been proposed to go through MAC_SAP in 802.11.
>Events in 802.11 are expected to go through management plane and/or data
>plane.
>
PF: So data plane events are LLC and the rest are management plane? Are
you indicating you reviewed all the MAC events and none go through MAC-SAP?

>
>
>4) "The MIH_LINK_SAP SAP specifies the interface between MIH and the
>management plane" If it is a management interface why do we change its
>name from MGMT-SAP to LINK_SAP?
>[Vivek G Gupta] 
>In general this SAP defines the interface between MIH Function and Link
>layer. The communication happens to go through management (and data)
>plane. 
>
PF: Data plane as of LLC, correct?

>Hence MIH_LINK_SAP was suggested as an alternate more appropriate
>name. 
>
PF: Not sure. If LLC addressing the data plane and what's left is
management plane why not call it management. Are you saying data plane
goes through LINK-SAP as well?

>No new primitives are required for data plane though in this case.
>This diagram has been presented earlier in "L2 requirements for 802.11"
>teleconference.
>
>
>5) What is the rational for removing MGMT-SAP from 802.16 in section
>5.5.3?
>[Vivek G Gupta] 
>Management primitives in 802.16 are expected to be part of M_SAP as
>shown in the new diagram (as per Figure 304 included in 802.16g Aug
>revision). Please review the 802.16g document for more details. Again
>this diagram has been presented earlier in "L2 requirements for 802.16"
>teleconferences as well.
>
PF: Yes I see. I thought MGMT-SAP existing at one point? Will check old
drafts.

>
>
>6) 5.6.3.1. I believe we need to mention here that we are also dealing
>with the station management as intended originally.
>[Vivek G Gupta] 
>Yes the MIH Function can be both on STA and AP and hence the above is
>implied anyway.
>
PF: Can we spell it out? not just imply.

>
>
>  
>