RE: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication Model - October 18, 2005
>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?
My thought was that the UE may not receive CS from multiple MIH entities
and UE cannot decide on the info authenticity if there were multiple
sources of IS. I agree with you that there is a possibiliy that these
MIH services can be shared between L3 and L2 MIH entities. But it must
be in a way that they are not conflicting in the offered services. I
think we should capture this. I was thinking about stating generically
that multiple MIH PoS can provide partial MIH services (IS, ES and CS)
but the provided (partial) services in such a way they are not
conflicting with other services offered by other MIH PoS. How does this
sound?
>Also even if the above restriction is true how shall it be
>enforced/applied?
It can be done in several ways. E.g. Info in discovery mechanisms can
say what specific MIH service capabilities are on a given given MIH PoS.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
>Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:50 PM
>To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: 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
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>