Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: We MUST improve the use and readability of the new commentary tool

 

So how do we support handovers from 3G -> 802 or is that now out of scope as well?

 

 

I am with Phil here. “…802.21 should strive to support either model….”

Also though the current proposed communication model in 802.21 discourages direct communication between PoAs, we have introduced the concept of “Network entity” with MIH capability. This “Network entity” can communicate with PoAs and even with Mobile node and these interfaces are within scope of 802.21…

 

Given that I would expect handover messages pertaining to direct communication between PoAs (as currently defined in our draft) could get supported through indirect communication with help from this Network entity. Even when folks suggested message exchange between PoAs it was meant to be more of a logical exchange of message which can be facilitated through some intermediary like this “Network Entity” rather than as direct communication between heterogeneous PoAs.

 

BR,

-Vivek

 

From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peretz Feder
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 6:30 AM
To: Phillip Barber
Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: We MUST improve the use and readability of the new commentary tool

 

Phil:

In 802.21 we need to consider all heterogeneous technologies. Although 802.xx PoA may be able to talk to another 802.xx PoA, it can't be done with 3GPP/2 PoAs. I don't see this changing any time soon and as such it is out of scope for 802.21 for now.

Peretz Feder

On 9/19/2005 7:56 AM, Phillip Barber wrote:

Peretz,

 

802.16 does not preclude BS-to-BS direct communications. It also does not preclude indirect communications through an intermediary. 802.21 should strive to support either model. It is a matter of implementation as to selection of communication structure.

 

Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Huawei

+1 972-365-6314 direct (US)
+1 925-396-0269 fax

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Peretz Feder

Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 1:30 AM

Subject: Re: We MUST improve the use and readability of the new commentary tool

 

Ronny, Vivek:

In your contribution 21-05-0335-01-0000-Requirements_Amendments_802_16 you imply that PoA_old and PoA_new can talk to each other directly.....

>From your table: "This is a notification from nPoA to oPoA that handover has been completed, new PoA has been established and any pending packets may now be forwarded to the new nPoA."

Our new communication model doesn't allow PoA to PoA direct communications. It will br totally impossible to do that with any of the 3GPP/2 technologies.

Peretz Feder

On 9/19/2005 12:40 AM, Peretz Feder wrote:

Dear 802.21 members:
 
As I can't make this upcoming meeting in Cal, I have been trying to catch up
with your contributions through the commentary file.
 
In contrast to the 802.16 commentary methodology, many of your comments are hard
to decipher and probably stem from the first attempt to use this commentary tool.
 
Please try to use commentary as a specific replacement tool to exiting text or
as a mechanism for adding text to various sections within the draft. Many of the
comments I list below are impossible to follow and miss to communicate the
message. Please try to follow the format I used for comments 147-159. Please
specify exactly the section(s), page(s) and lines effected. Please strike out
(in red like Ronny did) the removed text and add in (Red) the differential new text.
 
Also my tool reads many empty comments (listed below). I wonder if it is an
exporting issue when trying to combine.
 
Eric: What is comment 9? what section?
Eric Comments 8, 10, 11, 12, 13: have no remedy, these are only open statements
Eric comment 14: are you referring to Network Selection? Please specify original
text
Eric comment 15: what is the original text you are referring to?
Eric comment 18: and 19? what is the remedy?
Eric comment 21: too open ended
Eric: comment 22: what should be taken out?
Eric comment 23, 24: "This" this what?
Eric comment 25: what is not true? please list the original text you are
objection to
Eric comment 28, 30:  It will be better to show the original text, strike out
the unwanted section and retype the new text instead
Eric comment 31: Replace what?
Eric comment 32, 34, 35, 47, 58, 59, 72, 74, 75: - empty comments as read by my
commentary tool
Eric comment 37,38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71: all open ended, w/o remedy or proposed changes
Eric comment 45, 46, 54: Remedy = original text? I don't see your point here
Eric comment 56: Are you referring to one of the tables?
Eric comment 65, 66: Which table?
Eric comment 67, 73: Specific remedy?
Eric comment 76, 77: no remedy
Subir comment 78: Remedy = 6.3.1? Need to be more specific show old and new text
please
Subir comment 79: no remedy
Subir comment 80: empty comment
Subir comment 81: Remedy = 8.3.1?
Wolfgand comment 82, 83: empty comment
Vivek comment 85: Are you suggesting replacing the entire section?
Vivek comment 92: Delete lines 22-43 in what page, what text to delete?
Vivek comment 92: Which table? which section? what pages?
Vivek 93: Delete Annex D? why? what reason? what about all the valuable 3GPP and
3GPP2 events? why delete? what replaces it?
Vivek 94: what page? section? What is the remedy? table 5? where is table 5?
Vivek comments 95, 96: remedy is 5.5.4? Why are we removing MIH_MGMT_SAP?
Vivek comment 97: remedy is 7? what is 7?
Ronny comment 100: Remedy = 5.1.9?
Ronny comment 109; empty comment as read by my commentary tool
Jin Lee comment 116: empty comment
Yoshihiro comment 120: Why remove table 6?
Yoshihiro comment 122: why remove figure 22?
Yoshihiro comment 123: why remove table 7?
Yoshihiro comment 129, 130: Why remove annex C.2, C.3, C.4?
Yoshihiro comment 133: empty comment
Srinivas comment 134: why remove section 7.2.13 and 7.2.14?
Srinivas comments 135, 136, 136: What is the next text?
Srinivas comment 138; Why remove 7.2.16, 7.2.16, 7.2.17?
Srinivas comment 139: Solve what? what is the proposed text change?
Srinivas comments 140, 141: What is the proposed new text?
Srinivas comment 142: what page? what is the new proposed text?
Srinivas comment 143, 144: What page? what old text being changed? what is new text?
Srinivas comment 145: Must be changed to allow also MIHF in network to access
info. Ok what is the proposed new text?
Srinivas comment 145: empty comment
Qiaobing comment 161: empty comment
Benjamin comment 163, 164: Insert in 6.2.2 and 6.3.3. where in relation to
existing text?
Benjamin comment 165: What page? what section (my commentary tool reads section
25???)
Benjamin comment 166: empty comment
 
 
Peretz Feder