RE: [802.21] [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for Handover InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)

["Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <ASINGH1@motorola.com>]

I am not claiming that the size of XML encoded message will be smaller
than TLV encoded one.  

Ajoy-> OK 

I am claiming that if Solution 1 that provides less semantic query
(one may call it simple query) needs to carry x1 bytes of actual
information with its encoding overhead o1 bytes, while Solution 2 that
provides more semantic query (one may call it complex query) needs to
carry x2 (<x1) bytes of actual information with its encoding overhead
o2 (> o1) bytes, to make the same handover decision, then what we need
to compare in terms of information volume is [x1+o1 vs. x2+o2],
instead of [x1 vs. x2] or [o1 vs. o2].  And when we are discussing
information encoding, we are just discussing [o1 vs. o2], and choosing
a solution based only on this factor is wrong.

If we view Solution 1 as TLV-based and Solution 2 as XML-based, then I
think [x1 > x2] && [o1 < o2], and depending on how we encode XML,
diffence between o1 and o2 can be small.

Ajoy-> Could you please provide examples to justify your claim? I think
some 
example will be helpful here. We can always define good enough query
mechanism using TLV encoding that would be enough here. Btw, why do we
need extremely advance query mechanism for inter-technology handoff? But
we need to go through this discussion before we start designing any
query mechanism.  


Also note that real-time requirement for IS is relatively less critical 
than ES and CS.

Ajoy-> Agree. I was NOT referring to real time aspect of IS, ES and CS. 

 
Yoshihiro Ohba

>  
> 
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:19:26PM -0400, Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
> >      But it does not seem to be true given the current discussion. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Ajoy-> In IETF folks are trying to help 802.21 to get the work done
> > better. 
> > 
> > I do not believe there is anything wrong if some folks do not agree
> with
> > XML query. Honestly I do not believe XML query is  good for low
power 
> > 
> > mobile devices. Based upon our current experience folks are finding
> hard
> > to cope up with SIP and SIP compression itself. It looks good on
> paper, 
> > 
> > but somehow when you implement compression you may find that delay
> > introduced by compression out performs the bandwidth saving gained
> from 
> > 
> > compression. I do not believe that adding one more level of
> compression
> > for XML will be better idea. 
> > 
> > As a research topic it may look very attractive, but we have to look
> at
> > today's reality. I would like to state that in one of my discussions

> > 
> > I suggested that even TLV encoding can be modified to carry XML
script
> > to address some use cases where XML may be a good choice. 
> > 
> > I am afraid we are trying to push XML without considering reality at
> > hand. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Also, what is wrong about sharing view of 802.21 when MIPSHOP is
going
> > to define a protocol that would cater need of 
> > 
> > 802.21 itself?  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Nothing wrong in sharing the view.  But do we need to  mention the
> straw
> > poll result to establish our  technical reasoning? 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Ajoy-> Perhaps you did not like the word straw poll.  I will make
note
> > of that.  I think enough reasoning was given to justify that 
> > 
> > XML query complex query may not be good for low power mobile
devices. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> 
>