RE: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication Model - October 18, 2005
O) The UE has only one network counter-part MIH PoS in one network for
> > each of the MIH services (IS, ES and CS).
>
> I have no problem with this. An alternative is to have the service
> specific architecture sections following this top level model to
specify
> their respective restrictions
What is the motivation for above restriction?
If a UE is connected to a single L2 link can we have a MIH PoS in PoA
and possibly another L3 MIH PoS somewhere else in the network?
If a UE is connected to multiple L2 links how is a MIH PoS at L3
associated with a network w.r.t above restriction?
Also even if the above restriction is true how shall it be
enforced/applied?
BR,
-Vivek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Qiaobing Xie
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:31 PM
> To: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication Model -
> October 18, 2005
>
> Srini,
>
> Thanks. Please see my response in-line.
>
> Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Qiaobing and others,
> > Thanks for the update. This picture seems to capture most of the
> > possibilities we intend to enable. I would like to propose the
following
> > definitions and statements in the doc which, perhaps, are already
> > assumed and implicitly understood.
> >
> > MIH Non-PoS Network Entity: Network-side MIH-capable node than can
> > exchange MIH messages only with other MIH-capable network nodes.
> > MIH Function: A functional implementation that utilizes MIH
services.
>
> Yes, I think both above defs are assumed. I personally have not
problem
> of making them explicit in the doc.
>
> >
> > The following statements should be embedded somewhere, for clarity.
> >
> > O) The UE has only one network counter-part MIH PoS in one network
for
> > each of the MIH services (IS, ES and CS).
>
> I have no problem with this. An alternative is to have the service
> specific architecture sections following this top level model to
specify
> their respective restrictions.
>
> > O) It is possible that a single MIH PoS can host more than one MIH
> > service. MIH PoS can provide different sets of MIH services to
different
> > UE in the network based on the subscription or roaming
considerations.
> > Effectively, an MIH PoS can provide only a subset or none of those
> > services to a particular UE.
>
> I agree with this view. I see no reason to restrict otherwise.
>
> > O) The MIH PoS on a Non-PoA Network Entity and the MIH Non-PoS
Network
> > Entity could be located either in the serving or visited network,
> > candidate network or other networks (e.g. home).
>
> I agree. I see no reason to restrict otherwise.
>
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Srini
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
> > >Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:37 PM
> > >To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >Subject: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication
> > >Model - October 18, 2005
> > >
> > >Dear all:
> > >
> > >Our Ad-hoc conference call regarding the Communication Model
> > >discussion will be held tomorrow Tuesday, October 18th from
> > >9:00-11:00 A.M. EDT.
> > >
> > >I propose the following agenda:
> > >
> > >1) Review the 802.21 mailing list discussion on Link/PoA/MIH
> > >PoS definitions
> > >
> > >2) Discuss the communication model based the revised
> > >communication model document (attached).
> > >
> > >3) Discuss steps forward:
> > >
> > >Dial-In Number (USA/CANADA): (877) 283-2663
> > >Dial-In Number: (416) 621-1671
> > >Access Code: 1190571
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >-Qiaobing Xie
> > >
> > >
> >