| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Both the original and proposed text refer to "remote nodes of [a certain] media
type". I believe it is wrong: the medium type should apply to links and not to
nodes: for example, a router (which is a node) is not 802.16 nor 3GPP (which are
link attributes).
The text should read:
"The Media Independent Event service supports local events as well as remote
events. The placement of the MIH Function instances that exchange remote-event
information determines the type of transport used for the exchange: if the the
MIH function instances are collocated with two endpoints of the same layer-2
link, the exchange may occur using medium-specific layer-2 transport. In all
other cases the exchange must occur using layer-3 and above transport."
Your comment 28 and a response from Andrea:
All instances of L3MP should be removed (too specific, lacks generality):
"In case of local events the information typically propagates upwards from the
L2 data link (MAC, Radio Link, etc.) to the MIH Function or upper layers of the
local protocol stack. In case of remote events the information propagates from
the MIH Function or upper layers in one stack to the MIH function or upper
layers in another stack."
More later.... :-)
Peretz FederThanks Mat:
See in line PF comments.
Peretz Feder
On 9/19/2005 8:03 AM, zze-Seamless PERESSE M ext RD-RESA-REN wrote:
PF: Not sure open statements belong in commentary
De : Peretz Feder [mailto:pfeder@LUCENT.COM]
Envoyé : lundi 19 septembre 2005 06:40
À : STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Objet : [802.21] We MUST improve the use and readability of the new commentary tool
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? [[MP]] The page number is wrong this is on Section 3 page 6 line # 9 (ie...) Eric Comments 8, 10, 11, 12, 13: have no remedy, these are only open statements [[MP]] Yes that's because we don't have any... These comments are just aimed to raise open issues to be discussed by the group...
PF: [How can you determine before hand that the handover will be" break before make" or "make before break"? ]Eric comment 14: are you referring to Network Selection? Please specify original text [[MP]] Yes this is about Network Selection. Eric comment 15: what is the original text you are referring to? [[MP]] Please the enclosed .USR file.
The Mobility Manager or terminal can be bringing up two simultaneous links.
PF: Not sure open statements belong in commentaryEric comment 18: and 19? what is the remedy? [[MP]] These comments are just aimed to raise open issues to be discussed by the group...
PF: Not sure open statements belong in commentaryEric comment 21: too open ended [[MP]] These comments are just aimed to raise open issues to be discussed by the group...
PF: This is a logical Figure which will be augmented by the new communication model. Both are required. Don't agree it should be taken out.Eric: comment 22: what should be taken out? [[MP]] Wrong page number. Fixed. Fig 2 on page 15 has to be taken out (this figure provides an infrastructure model...)
PF: Comment 28: Why remove the notion of events propagating also higher than MIH?Eric comment 23, 24: "This" this what? [[MP]] This = L3MP. Fixed. Eric comment 25: what is not true? please list the original text you are objection to [[MP]] For this one we provided the original and proposed text:Original Text: The Media Independent Event service supports local events as well as remote events if the remote node(s) is of the same media type.Proposed Text: The Media Independent Event service supports local events as well as remote events regardless of the remote nodes' media type. If the two endpoint are of the same media type, they can use an L2 transport to exchange events; if the two endpoints are of different media types, they have to use L3 transport. Eric comment 28, 30: It will be better to show the original text, strike out the unwanted section and retype the new text instead [[MP]] Fixed.
PF: Not sure open statements belong in commentaryEric comment 31: Replace what? [[MP]] "L3MP" Eric comment 32, 34, 35, 47, 58, 59, 72, 74, 75: - empty comments as read by my commentary tool [[MP]] Yes they are empty comments. In fact we deleted them but we didn't want to mess with comment number reordering. Fixed. 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 [[MP]] (again) Yes that's because we don't have any... These comments are just aimed to raise open issues to be discussed by the group...
PF: Which file number please?Eric comment 65, 66: Which table? [[MP]] Wrong page number. Fixed. The table has no number. This is the only table of page 76. Eric comment 67, 73: Specific remedy? [[MP]] No remedy for now. Eric comment 76, 77: no remedy [[MP]] The remedies are in the .doc we mention in the Recommendation boxes. They must be on the .21 website.
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